Guillaune:
Thanks for the info. Actually just as I received your e-mail, I was
looking at the changes you made last Friday to EndpointRegistry to fix
this.
I don't mind using snapshot builds, but it gets to be a pain because the
snapshots may depend on newer (or even snapshot) builds of other
dependencies. For example, I think if I start using the 2.0 snapshot that
I'll also have to upgrade the version of jencks that I'm using...and maybe
other JARs.
For now, it's good enough to know that it *will* be in 2.0. If I get a
chance, maybe I'll tinker with the snapshot build.
Thanks,
Craig
> Hi Craig !
>
> The main problem you will face, is that the interface attribute on the
> component
> as you configured it is not used anywhere :-[ .
>
> Interface based routing is mainly scheduled for version 2.0 of
> ServiceMix. If you want to try it, you could use 2.0 snapshots, and I
> will gladly fix any issues you could find.
>
> Cheers,
> Guillaune Nodet
>
> Craig Walls wrote:
>
>>Now that I have (most) of my clustering frustrations behind me, I'm
>> trying to send a message to an interface instead of by explicitly
>> naming a service. I looked for unit-tests and examples to guide me, but
>> to no avail.
>>
>>Nevertheless, I tried setting the interface name on the exchange
>> instead of setting the service:
>>
>> InOnly exchange = serviceMixClient.createInOnlyExchange();
>> exchange.setInterfaceName(new QName("foo"));
>>
>>And setting the interface attribute on the component:
>>
>> <component id="billing"
>> service="billing"
>> interface="foo"
>> class="com.habuma.telco.sm.components.BillingServiceImpl">
>> ...
>> </component>
>>
>>This did not work. I got a message saying "SericeName (null) specified
>> for routing but can't find it registered"
>>
>>Looking at the source code for org.servicemix.jbi.nmr.Broker I see that
>> code that should be locating the component by interface and am trying
>> to figure out from that code what I'm doing wrong. But even then, I
>> have a few questions:
>>
>>1. Shouldn't the warning log message be "InterfaceName
>> ("+interfaceName+") specified for routing, but can't find it
>> registered"? At this point in the code we're trying to lookup by
>> interface name, not service name, so it seems that the warning message
>> is wrong. (BTW, I'm happy to see that the latest code in SVN has
>> corrected the typo in "SericeName".)
>>
>>2. Is there something obvious from the code snippets above that I'm
>> doing wrong?
>>
>>3. Does anybody have any example code that they could share that shows
>> how to send messages by interface instead of by service name?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
