How about making the Claim Check EIP Expression-Aware?
Then one could do something like, which is more versatile and higher-level:

from("...")
  .claimCheck(myMessageStoreInstance,
xpath("/MyCoolElement/@superCoolAttribute"))
  .to("....");

and

from("...")
  .claim(myMessageStoreInstance, ognl("request.awesomeProperty"))
  .to("....");

Regards,

*Raúl Kripalani*
Apache Camel Committer
Enterprise Architect, Program Manager, Open Source Integration specialist
http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk <http://twitter.com/raulvk>

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Christian Müller <
christian.muel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Shouldn't it be possible to configure the store?
> Something like:
>
> from("...")
>   .claimCheck(myMessageStoreInstance)
>   .to("....");
>
> and
>
> from("...")
>   .setHeader(Exchange.CLAIM_CHECK, constant("my claim check id"))
>   .claim(myMessageStoreInstance)
>   .to("....");
>
> By default (if no message store instance is configured) we could use a
> memory message store.
>
> Best,
> Christian
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Henryk Konsek <hekon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You are invited add, comment, criticize etc.
> >
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> > Looks good :) .
> >
> > I've added some examples to Wiki demonstrating my vision of the usage
> > of Claim Check EIP.
> >
> > // Setting default message store for route:
> > defaultMessageStore(myStore);
> >
> > // Claim Check EIP store:
> > // 1) Store body.
> > // 2) Set body to null.
> > // 3) Set Exchange.CLAIM_CHECK header to unique claim id.
> > from(...).claimCheck().to(...);
> >
> > // Claim Check EIP read:
> > // 1) Lookup for the Exchange.CLAIM_CHECK header value.
> > // 2) Read the message.
> > // 3) Set body to the value fetched from the store.
> > from(...).setHeader(Exchange.CLAIM_CHECK, const("id")).claim().to(...);
> >
> > I'm curious if my claim check DSL design is similar to yours.
> >
> > Best regards.
> >
> > --
> > Henryk Konsek
> > http://henryk-konsek.blogspot.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
>

Reply via email to