It would make sense to enhance the ContentEnricher to support InOut meps to get rid of the async bridge and one of the pipeline.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Lukasz L. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On logical level yes, but you have some 'routing mistakes', Content Enricher > target is inonly so you won't get response from XSLT in this way, don't know > which XSLT you use but suppose you'll use Saxon > (http://servicemix.apache.org/servicemix-saxon.html) your flow could look > like this (in case you want to get response from actual service which I > suppose is your case): > [it may seem like complicated routing but it is necessary becasue of MEPs > differences] > > <eip:async-bridge service="test:AsyncBridge" endpoint="AsyncBridgeEndpoint" > <eip:target> > <eip:exchange-target service="test:contentEnricher" /> > </eip:target> > </eip:async-bridge> > > <eip:content-enricher service="test:contentEnricher" endpoint="endpoint"> > <eip:enricherTarget> > <eip:exchange-target service="test:TokenService" /> > </eip:enricherTarget> > <eip:target> > <eip:exchange-target service="test:XSLTpipeline" /> > </eip:target> > </eip:content-enricher> > > <eip:pipeline service="test:XSLTpipeline" endpoint="endpoint"> > <eip:transformer> > <eip:exchange-target service="test:XSLT" /> > </eip:transformer> > <eip:target> > <eip:exchange-target service="test:ASpipeline" /> > </eip:target> > </eip:pipeline> > > <eip:pipeline service="test:ASpipeline" endpoint="endpoint"> > <eip:transformer> > <eip:exchange-target service="test:theActualService" /> > </eip:transformer> > <eip:target> > <eip:exchange-target service="test:asyncBridge" /> > </eip:target> > </eip:pipeline> > > > JMan_JE wrote: >> >> Maybe its not to bad at all :-) If i got you right, i could do it like >> this: >> >> <eip:content-enricher service="test:contentEnricher" endpoint="endpoint"> >> <eip:enricherTarget> >> <eip:exchange-target service="test:TokenService" /> >> </eip:enricherTarget> >> <eip:target> >> <eip:exchange-target service="test:xslt" /> >> </eip:target> >> </eip:content-enricher> >> >> <eip:static-routing-slip service="test:routingSlip" endpoint="endpoint"> >> <eip:targets> >> <eip:exchange-target service="test:contentEnricher" /> >> <eip:exchange-target service="test:theActualService" /> >> </eip:targets> >> </eip:static-routing-slip> >> >> Right? >> >> cheers, Johannes >> >> >> >>> So why don't you use this concatenation offered by CE and do XSLT after >>> that >>> to insert what you want to the original message? >>> Other question, wha is the relation between original request and the >>> request >>> to token service? >>> Where are both of this request created? >>> >>> >>> JMan_JE wrote: >>> >>>> Ok, >>>> in the case i write my own bean, i have to invoke the token service >>>> inside from my bean? I wouldn't really like that idea. Maybe bpel is >>>> just the better option in this case? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/BPEL-vs-ContentEnricher-Pattern-tp19810402p19875647.html > Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://open.iona.com
