This is also my understanding and likewise I would like to know if this interpretation is right or wrong.
That said, don't these points imply that the Exchange Pattern is a FLAG which a target a end point can ignore or wrap logic around? DariusX wrote > 3. The MEP used for the "sub-route" determines whether the "parent" route > will wait for the "sub-route" and use the out-message of that sub-route as > the in-message to its next step. > > 4. By implication, the MEP of the "sub-route" will not have an effect if > the "sub-route" is always synchronous (or always asynchronous). If the > "sub-route" is always synchronous, it basically does not support being > called with inOnly(). If the sub-route is always asynchronous, it does not > support being called with inOut(). Setting the MEP has no impact on such > routes. > > 5. Going back to the original question: since "direct:xyz" is always > synchronous, it always works as if it is being called with InOut, > regardless of the MEP on the route. -- View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Can-t-understand-what-inOnly-is-doing-tp5787961p5788102.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
