Feel free to raise a JIRA issue and attach your patch if you want to
contribute it back to the community ...

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Johannes Elsinghorst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> i actually patched the contentenricher, so that it works with InOut MEPs
> also, so i dont need the async-bridge in 3.2.2 anymore...
>
> cheers, Johannes
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

Reply via email to