here is my take...you generally want a distinct endpoint/route for each
technology you are interfacing with, but can encapsulate common
functionality in direct routes, beans, processors, etc.
for example, if you want to expose a given route via soap, ftp and socket
connections...you could do so with 3 different routes that all convert to a
standard format that your common processing route (or bean or processor) can
handle...
from("cxf:...")...<convert>...to("direct:processRequest);
from("netty:...")...<convert>...to("direct:processRequest);
from("ftp:...")...<convert>...to("direct:processRequest);
from("direct:processRequest")...process request...
for the system2/3 communication...separate routes are needed for each
direction (consumer vs. producer) of communication
//2 way for system 3
from("direct:callSystem3).to("cxf:<system3 web service call>");
from("cxf:<endpoint for system3 to call>")...;
//1 way for system 2
from("direct:sendToSystem2).to("netty:<system2>");
xiangqiuzhao wrote:
>
> in my application platform, the communicate relation like this:
>
> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/file/n4585397/aa.jpg
>
> if every arrowhead show a request. and all request must receive response
> with synchronous mode.
>
> so which routes should to be define ?
>
> is every request shold be define with a route?
>
> like my application communicate with system3. app can request to system3
> and receive response from it, and system3 can request to my app and my app
> must response to system3. so i need to define two routes between my
> application with system3?
>
-----
Ben O'Day
IT Consultant -http://consulting-notes.com
--
View this message in context:
http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/how-to-decide-a-route-should-be-define-tp4585397p4587757.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
