I will take care of it. -- Willem Jiang
Red Hat, Inc. Web: http://www.redhat.com Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com(http://willemjiang.blogspot.com/) (English) http://jnn.iteye.com(http://jnn.javaeye.com/) (Chinese) Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On December 12, 2013 at 1:36:19 AM, Sergey Beryozkin (sberyoz...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Hi > On 11/12/13 17:02, Dominik Amon wrote: > > Hi Sergey, > > > > i created a JIRA ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-7061 > > > ). > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Sergey Beryozkin-3 wrote > >> What I'm not understanding yet is what kind of response you > actually get > >> if IN message is checked ? > > > > The problem in my case is that the last action of the TryProcessor > is moving > > the out message to the in message, thus setting the out message > to null. > > Now when the CxfRsInvokers returnResponse method is called, > which populates > > the response using the DefaultCxfRsBinding (calling > > endpoint.getBinding().populateCxfRsResponseFromExchange(camelExchange, > > cxfExchange))the exchange looks like: > > > > Exchange > > in : [MyPayload] > > out : null > > > > and the DefaultCxfRsBinding currently only uses the out message > and if the > > out message is null cxfrs returns the http response code 204. > > > > When removing the block the exchange that arrives at > the > > DefaultCxfRsBinding looks like: > > > > Exchange > > in : [MyPayload] > > out : [MyPayload] > > > > an everything is fine. > > > Clear, thanks > > > > Sergey Beryozkin-3 wrote > >> I'm also slightly concerned that if if we have roots explicitly > checking > >> for 204 (or indeed roots dealing with HTTP responses having > no actual > >> body) then this patch might affect them ? > > > > Hmm, the Camel FAQ is saying that only using the in message should > be fine: > > Camel FAQ > > > > > > But maybe in some circumstances it will affect some routes, > I have to think > > about it. > > > Please do. > > > > Sergey Beryozkin-3 wrote > >> May be, in case of CXF RS binding, checking IN should be optional, > >> example, if an exchange property is set allowing for it then > do it, > >> otherwise not. What do you think ? > > > > Well, in my opinion it should in every case be consintent to the > > DefaultCxfBinding. If it is made optional which I think is not > a bad idea it > > should be made optional for both DefaultCxfBinding and DefaultCxfRsBinding. > > > > > Typical SOAP response will not be empty, may be only in advanced > WS-RM > scenarios, so I guess it is very safe for the DefaultCxfBinding. > > That said, your patch is likely very safe, now that I think about > it, if > we have routes with 204 or 302, etc, they won't have the response > body > anyway, please think a bit more about such cases, but I guess your > patch > would be good to go > > Thanks, Sergey > > Regards > > Dominik > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/DefaultCxfRsBinding-only-uses-Exchange-getOut-tp5744605p5744622.html > > > > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > >
