Johannes, ServiceMix SNAPSHOTs can be found at http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository/org/apache/servicemix/. Unless you're using the 'mvn jbi:projectDeploy' command to deploy your SA (most users don't use this), you do not necessarily have to change anything in the Maven project. You just have to replace the components in the ServiceMix hotdeploy folder with the new ones. After that, you can deploy your SA with EIP SU containing the async bridge.
Regards, Gert JMan_JE wrote: > > Hi, > just tried to get it running, but recognized that the async-bridge is > not available in 3.2.2 :-( > Found an earlier posting on the list about it where it was suggested to > use servicemix-shared-4.0-SNAPSHOT and servicemix-eip-4.0-SNAPSHOT and > deploy them in a 3.2.x jbi container. > Well, how would i do this? Where do i get them, and what do i need to > change in my su's and sa's? Just changing > <servicemix-version>3.2.2</servicemix-version> to > <servicemix-version>4.0-SNAPSHOT</servicemix-version>? > > cheers, Johannes >> 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. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > ----- --- Gert Vanthienen http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/BPEL-vs-ContentEnricher-Pattern-tp19810402p20016808.html Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
