Ruwan
I propose that rather than injectToProxy we do:
setTo("proxy:myProxy");
and just use a URL scheme instead.
Thoughts?
Paul
On 8/16/07, Ruwan Linton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> On 8/16/07, Nick Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 16 Aug 2007, at 04:43, Ruwan Linton wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Nick,
> > >
> > > This behavior is exactly what is expected. If you want to mediate
> > > the newly
> > > forked message using another sequence you need to call the
> > > following, rather
> > > than injectMessage.
> >
> > - OK, thanks for your help, and for further developments. I
> > understand what is happening now.
> >
> > I hadn't realised I could use (new SendMediator()).mediate(newCtx)!
> >
> > And I can see the use of being able to inject into the current and
> > different sequences.
>
>
>
> Yes, will add this soon. May be we can add a injectToProxy() method as well
> with the proxy name being the parameter to be passed in to the method so
> that it will inject the message to the relevant proxy service.
>
> Thanks,
> Ruwan
>
>
> Thanks again
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ruwan Linton
> http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
>
--
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
