Just a bit of brainstorming of ideas here.
I was looking at this example
@ExchangeProcessor(patterns = { MessageExchangePattern.INOUT },
parameterMappings = { ParameterMapping.IN_MESSAGE_CONTENT })
public void myInOutProcessor(MessageExchange me) {
// Do something here
}
@ExchangeProcessor(patterns = { MessageExchangePattern.INONLY,
MessageExchangePattern.ROBUSTINOULY },
parameterMappings = {
ParameterMapping.IN_MESSAGE_CONTENT })
public void myInOnlyProcessor(Source payload) {
// Do something here
}
and wondering how to simplify a little.
My first thought was to use an annotation for each kind of exchange to
be supported...
@InOnlyExchange @RobustInOnlyExchange
public void foo(MessageExchange exchange) {
}
(I realised we'd get class name clashes so added the 'Exchange'
postfix to the annotation names. Then I figured it might be simpler to
just use a typesafe API...
@ExchangeProcessor
public void foo(InOnly exchange) {
}
@ExchangeProcessor
public void bar(RobustInOnly exchange) {
}
I guess sometimes folks might not want to see/use the exchange or
might wish to support multiple patterns for one method so some kinda
annotation to indicate the exchange pattern is still useful.
Also how about annotating parameters as being bound to the exchange...
@ExchangeProcessor
public void foo(@MessageProperty('cheese') String foo,
@ExchangeProperty("beer") Integer bar, @MessageContent Source payload)
{
}
While the @MessageContent may at first not appear that useful, we
could allow some automatic tranformations from common types to message
contents such as DOM or JAXB marshalling etc
e.g.
@ExchangeProcessor
public SomeResponse doSomething(@MessageBody SomeRequest foo) { ... }
where SomeRequest and SomeResponse could be marshalled to/from Source via JAXB2.
This would allow folks to process exchanges without using any of the
JBI APIs if they wish - or inject a MessageExchange or
NormalizedMessage into a parameter if required.
On 8/21/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Great stuff Philip!
More feedback as I start digesting this fully and reading this whole
thread but my first reaction is could we try to stick to standard
annotations where possible - such as those defined in JSR 250? e.g.
http://geronimo.apache.org/xbean/annotation-based-dependency-injection.html
so
@ServiceStartup -> @PostConstruct
@ServiceShutdown -> @PreDestroy
am also wondering how many of the other annotations are really
required on injected fields - could we just use @Resource to indicate
stuff that is mandatory to be dependency injected (like EJB3s). I'm
sure some of the annotations are required though; am just wondering
how many of them are
On 8/18/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have knocked up some thoughts on a JBI POJO engine that could be
> used to provide a mechanism for annotating POJO specifically for more
> messaging level operations that the JSR181 service engine is aimed
> for.
>
> The idea is to provide a simple framework to replace the Spring Client
> Toolkit that is now defunt.
>
> Have a look at the idea -
> http://goopen.org/confluence/display/SM/JBI+Pojo+Service+Engine
>
> And all comments/thoughts are welcome!!
>
> P
>
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
