I just tried out the http component for REST calls - you were absolutely right. The straight HTTP component is _TONS_ easier to work with. No more templates either... just set the relative path as a header. So much better!
It seems so obvious now; I was making things much harder than they needed to be. Thanks! deckerego wrote: > > I think I see what you mean. In my head I'm trying to think of the > benefits of using CXFRS or Restlet instead of straight HTTP... but in > truth I'm not coming up with many. I'm ultimately just going to take the > resulting XML and unmarshal it via JAXB, then throw non-HTTP 200 response > codes as an exception. > > Am I grossly oversimplifying things? Or are the benefits of Restlet/CXFRS > just limited to helper methods and URI templates? > > > willem.jiang wrote: >> >> After doing some research work on the HTTP authentication and cookies, I >> found it could be better to choice camel-http component[1] to do the job. >> It provides you more easy way to set the cookies from the Http header. >> > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Setting-Cookie-Header-in-Restlet-Request-tp27839785p27859364.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
