You are right. The type define in the interface is <E> but unfortunately in
the code, we are using <String> as type
1) constructor of idempotentconsumer defines the type as String
public IdempotentConsumer(Expression messageIdExpression,
IdempotentRepository<String> idempotentRepository,
boolean eager, boolean skipDuplicate, boolean
removeOnFailure, Processor processor) {
2) like also the createProcessor of the idempotentConsumerDefinition
@Override
@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public Processor createProcessor(RouteContext routeContext) throws
Exception {
Processor childProcessor = this.createChildProcessor(routeContext,
true);
IdempotentRepository<String> idempotentRepository =
(IdempotentRepository<String>)
resolveMessageIdRepository(routeContext);
ObjectHelper.notNull(idempotentRepository, "idempotentRepository",
this);
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:12 PM, David Karlsen <davidkarl...@gmail.com>wrote:
> IdempotentConsumer demands that the messageId is a string:
>
> final String messageId = messageIdExpression.evaluate(exchange,
> String.class);
> if (messageId == null) {
> throw new NoMessageIdException(exchange, messageIdExpression);
> }
>
> boolean newKey;
> if (eager) {
> // add the key to the repository
> newKey = idempotentRepository.add(messageId);
> } else {
> // check if we already have the key
> newKey = !idempotentRepository.contains(messageId);
> }
>
> (Why isn't it an object or a parameterized type?)
>
> but the IdempotentRepository interface is parameterized to hold any type
> <E>
>
>
> --
> --
> David J. M. Karlsen - http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidkarlsen
>
--
Charles Moulliard
Apache Committer / Architect @RedHat
Twitter : @cmoulliard | Blog : http://cmoulliard.github.io
