There's actually a gap in the documentation in this area.   CXF also supports 
"byte" as the message type in the configuration to use a BytesMessage.



Dan

On Tue November 3 2009 5:50:20 pm Bryan99 wrote:
> The W3C SOAP over JMS spec for the JMS body states the following
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/soapjms/#binding-message-body) :
> 
> "The contents of the JMS Message body MUST be the SOAP payload as a JMS
> BytesMessage or TextMessage. [Definition: Use fault subcode
> unsupportedJMSMessageFormat when the arriving message format is not
> BytesMessage or TextMessage. ]."
> 
> The CXF user guide notes on specifying JMS messageType reads as follows:
> 
> "You can specify the message type supported by the consumer endpoint using
>  a jms:runtimePolicy element that has a single attribute:
> messageType - Specifies how the message data will be packaged as a JMS
> message. text specifies that the data will be packaged as a TextMessage.
> binary specifies that the data will be packaged as an ObjectMessage."
> 
> The fuse documentation goes a little further:
> 
> "JMS consumer endpoints specify the type of messages they use. JMS consumer
> endpoint can use either a JMS ObjectMessage or a JMS TextMessage. When
>  using an ObjectMessage the consumer endpoint uses a byte[] as the method
>  for storing data into and retrieving data from the JMS message body. When
>  messages are sent, the message data, including any formating information,
>  is packaged into a byte[] and placed into the message body before it is
>  placed on the wire. When messages are received, the consumer endpoint will
>  attempt to unmarshall the data stored in the message body as if it were
>  packed in a byte[]."
> 
> It seems to me that using message type binary indicates that ObjectMessage
> will be used which seems to be in violation of the SOAP over JMS spec.
> However, does the fact that the ObjectMessage wraps a byte array make it
>  not violate the spec?
> 
> I'm confused, can anyone un-confuse me? Perhaps I shouldn't care.
> 
> Thanks anyway.
> 

-- 
Daniel Kulp
[email protected]
http://www.dankulp.com/blog

Reply via email to