th the remaining of ServiceMix.
For actions, you could define these properties on the BAMEndpoint:
private Action[] actions;
private Resource actionsResource;
with the appropriate getters / setters, where
Action is an interface defined by the BAM component, and Resource is a
spring re
[] actions;
private Resource actionsResource;
with the appropriate getters / setters, where
Action is an interface defined by the BAM component, and Resource is a
spring resource (org.springframework.core.io.Resouce).
Let's you have an Action implementation with the MyAction class, if you
annotat
Let me give it a shot...
- Original Message -
From: "Guillaume Nodet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: BAM Component
Ok, let me explain or we could use URI or endpoint resolution to avoid
duplicating
some code.
Each componen
ynamic HttpEndpoint and use the uri to configure
it.
Hence the http.soap=true parameter on the URI.
All properties can be configured this way, so the main benefit is that using
only the JBI api,
you can eaily leverage all existing BCs.
I think the BAM component should implement an Adaptor, which
on the URI.
All properties can be configured this way, so the main benefit is that using
only the JBI api,
you can eaily leverage all existing BCs.
I think the BAM component should implement an Adaptor, which would use such
URIs to resolve
EPRs so that it can send exchange to all known protocols
t;
To:
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: BAM Component
I agree...about reusability.
Regarding the concepts of BAM I guess there has been a lot of debate on
this...
Here is the trade off - from a use case perspective :
1) Passive - where we just sniff the data without hinde
d have thought a BAM component would be more
about
monitoring than embedding business logic with rules: see one definition of
BAM at
http://www.ebizq.net/topics/bam/features/4689.html -- of course all
definitions can be argued ;)
- Original Message -
From: "Guillaume Nodet" &
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: BAM Component
On 7/31/06, Soumadeep-Infravio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks Guillaume,
comments inline...
Thanks
Soumadeep
- Original Message -
From: "Guillaume Nodet" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On 7/31/06, Soumadeep-Infravio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks Guillaume,
comments inline...
Thanks
Soumadeep
- Original Message -
From: "Guillaume Nodet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cc:
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: BAM Component
> G
