Matthias, The benefit of creating a Marshaler for that, would be that the validation happens very early on and you don't need to route invalid messages through the ESB. You can just code this up as you would usually do validation, reading the XSD resource off the classpath or allow people to specify a uri (either classpath or file or whatever) to the resource on the Marshaler configuration.
However, other than that the little excess routing, I don't see many advantages to building this thing yourself. Personally, I would use a Camel route with the Camel MSV (aka http://camel.apache.org/validation.html) in there to start with. You can always start coding things up yourself if you're really experiencing any problems with the overhead, but if you're using the SedaFlow and all exchanges are just flowing around in memory, I don't think it will be an issue. Regards, Gert Vanthienen ------------------------ Open Source SOA: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/ 2009/5/27 mast <[email protected]>: > > Hi, > > I would like to validate an incoming xml structure that i receives from an > http request against an xsd. > My setup so far is: > > http req -> http consumer su -> DefaultHttpConsumerMarshaler -> sending the > received xml further down the message exchange chain -> eip router -> > validate xml -> routes the xml to a jms provider. > > My question is, what setup would be a good solution for this? > Where should i preferable validate the incoming xml? If the answer is in the > marshaller, how can I then retrieve the xsd that I would like to validate > against? Or should i use camel and from there validate the xml? > > I'am using SMX 3.3. > > BR > Mathias > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/XML-validating-against-XSD-best-approach-scenario-tp23740272p23740272.html > Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
