Seems strange that a task calls a Java class. Would it not be better for it to start a <sequence>.
I want to call two web services in a chain that also require a java call, every 20 minutes. A task is the solution for the timing bit. I want to start a complex sequence. Part of the sequecne calls a Java class that adds BASIC auth info (username and password) to TRANSAPORT. With a task I can't call two Java classes, one to inject Message and one to add AUTH. I could to edit the Message Injector class to also add in the BASIC auth headers. So create a new injector with basic auth properties too. This also is a very poor solution. At the moment I am using the task message injector to call a Synapse proxy that runs my sequence; as a named proxy. This sequence builds the message payload and calls the Java to add BASIC Auth headers. This seems a round about and indirect way to solve the problem. As I can embed a java class in a sequence, having a task call a sequence would be a more general solution than having it just call a java class. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Tasks-are-strange.-tp22406367p22406367.html Sent from the Synapse - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
