You can store information as exchange properties and they stick around On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Camel Guy <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Claus, > > Thank you again for your reply. Unfortunately I did not see anything > in that FAQ that relates to my problem. > > From route A, I am invoking route B (serially) that deletes a header > key. I would like the header key to exist for route A afterwards even > though route B deleted it. Using a splitter works great. I can not get > enrich or recipientList to work. > > This is a contrived example. The general use case is invoking routes > without side-effects so they can be called recursively -- as > subroutines. > > > Thanks, > > cg > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Claus Ibsen <[email protected]> wrote: >> See this FAQ >> http://camel.apache.org/why-is-my-message-body-empty.html >> >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Camel Guy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Claus, >>> >>> Thanks for the pointer! >>> >>> This program logs "INFO hello" followed by an empty INFO message. I >>> would like the second logged message to also be "INFO hello." >>> >>> Am I doing something wrong? >>> >>> Camel 2.14.0 >>> >>> >>> Thank you, >>> ~cg >>> >>> <route> >>> <from uri="direct:Test"/> >>> <setHeader headerName='bar'><constant>hello</constant></setHeader> >>> <log message="${header.bar}"/> >>> <enrich uri="direct:Foo"/> >>> <log message="${header.bar}"/> >>> </route> >>> >>> <route> >>> <from uri="direct:Foo"/> >>> <removeHeader headerName='bar'/> >>> </route> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Claus Ibsen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> See about the content enricher >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Camel Guy <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I am using Spring XML. I would like to invoke a route synchronously, >>>>> passing the current Exchange. However, I want to discard the changes >>>>> that the invoked route makes to the Exchange (e.g., modification of >>>>> headers). >>>>> >>>>> So far this is the shortest recipe that results in the desired behavior: >>>>> >>>>> <split><constant>1</constant><to uri="direct:Foo"/></split> >>>>> >>>>> Is there a more elegant way to do this? >>>>> >>>>> I tried <recipientList><constant>direct:Foo</constant></recipientList> >>>>> but the current Exchange was modified. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> ~cg >>>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Claus Ibsen >> ----------------- >> Red Hat, Inc. >> Email: [email protected] >> Twitter: davsclaus >> Blog: http://davsclaus.com >> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen >> hawtio: http://hawt.io/ >> fabric8: http://fabric8.io/
-- Claus Ibsen ----------------- Red Hat, Inc. Email: [email protected] Twitter: davsclaus Blog: http://davsclaus.com Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen hawtio: http://hawt.io/ fabric8: http://fabric8.io/
