If we can do this efficiently then maybe. I guess the other approach would be to start providing metadata for mediators that controlled these aspects.
But this is early days. I would like to get the simple model running well, develop some mediators and then drive the complexity out of real requirements.
Paul
On 10/19/05, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok I agree with you, it seems better not to re-evaluate all the matching rules. I guess the point I was debating is wouldn't it be nicer if Synapse controlled this instead of the mediator?
The Mediator is just like any regular mediator without using any special Synapse nonblocking API:
public boolean mediate(Message m) {
m.setTo("http://xmethods/stockquote");
return true;
}
And Synapse says, oh, you've changed wsa:to, thats one of those "special things", better make this a new request.
That way we can change our minds about what constitutes a "special thing" without having to change any mediator code, and we could maybe build some smarts into Synapse so that it can somehow check if any rules before the current rule were interested in a wsa:to of http://xmethods/stockquote and if not then this wouldn't have to be a new request.
...antOn 10/19/05, Paul Fremantle < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Ok. So is exactly the case where you want to say this is a new message. I agree with that scenario. But I still think that it helps limit the possibility of endless loops and improves the performance if the default behaviour is not to re-evaluate the matching rules between rules.
Pau
