After more coffee, I think this is indeed the very best proposal of
all three. Any other proposals / opinions?
Thanks James
Hadrian
On Jul 9, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
Ah, your proposal is a variation of the first one, where isFault and
setFault() are Message methods, not Exchange. I am fine with that
too. Not sure about the boolean argument for setFault, but that's a
detail. Why would somebody invoke:
message.setFault(false);
3.
Exchange interface
Message getOut();
void setOut(Message out);
Message interface
boolean hasFault();
void setFault(); // or
void setFault(boolean value);
I am ok with all three api versions proposed so far. I guess [3] is
clearer more intuitive.
Thanks
Hadrian
On Jul 9, 2009, at 1:11 PM, James Strachan wrote:
2009/7/9 Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>:
That is *only one* of getOut() and getFault() would return a non
null object
depending on the CAMEL_FAULT header being present.
setOut() and setFault() would (re)set the CAMEL_FAULT header as
needed. OUT
and FAULT are mutually exclusive.
Which is why I'm thinking we just have one propery, "out" which the
message has an isFault() / setFault(boolean) property on it.
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com/
