Hi Eric
<send>
<property name="BUILD_ENVELOPE" value="true"/>
<... other such properties.../>
<endpoint ...../>
</send>
+1
I thought exactly the same while reading the original mail. The short name with
"env" could be quite confusing for new users which are not the deeply involved
into the technical details. There is often an association Env --> Environment.
I also think that the property approach fits well, especially if more
properties will follow.
Yep, glad I was able to think like a user :-) !
OR/AND
<send>
<endpoint ....>
<property name="BUILD_ENVELOPE" value="true"/>
<... other such properties.../>
</endpoint>
</send>
I'm not that sure about this one due to missing use cases in mind. Asankha,
could you give some examples? I wouldn't like this as an replacement of the
above option (OR), but would also not be against it as an alternative (AND).
I think this should be an AND too.. just threw the options possible
earlier..
Here is something I know will need to be changed,
<address uri="endpoint address" [format="soap11|soap12|pox|get"]
[optimize="mtom|swa"].....>
I think the format attribute was a bad choice too.. for example to
support PUT, DELETE, OPTIONS etc we may have an issue. Also, I think
with other transports, there would be some valid use cases. Maybe a
password that should be used when talking to that endpoint etc, or the
identifier name from the identity keystore to be used for 2-way SSL..
I'm just thinking out loud..
cheers
asankha
--
Asankha C. Perera
AdroitLogic, http://adroitlogic.org
http://esbmagic.blogspot.com
