Ian,

This feature seems to be missing from the new JMS consumer endpoint.
Could you please raise a JIRA issue (cfr.
http://servicemix.apache.org/contributing.html for more information)
for this?  Btw, patches are welcome too ;)

As a temporary workaround, you could create your own Marshaler that
extends the DefaultConsumerMarshaler and adds the operation to the
MessageExchange.

Regards,

Gert Vanthienen
------------------------
Open Source SOA: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/



2009/6/22 Ian Harrigan <ianharri...@hotmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> I was recently trying to convert my old JMS consumer (using <jms:endpoint 
> role="consumer".../>) to the newer jms:consumer endpoints to take advantage 
> of various enhancements that it offers however, i have a problem with it 
> kicking off my BPEL process (which worked fine on the old endpoints).
>
> My old endpoint was as follows:
>
>    <jms:endpoint service="client:MessageBrokerProvider"
>                  endpoint="MessageBrokerPort"
>                  targetService="client:MessageBrokerProvider"
>                  defaultOperation="client:Execute"
>                  role="consumer"
>                  destinationStyle="queue"
>                  jmsProviderDestinationName="GATEWAY_INPUT_Q"
>                  connectionFactory="#connectionFactory"
>                  defaultMep="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/in-out";
>                  useMsgIdInResponse ="true"/>
>
> and my new one looks like:
>
>  <jms:consumer service="client:MessageBrokerProvider"
>   endpoint="MessageBrokerPort"
>   targetService="client:MessageBrokerProvider"
>   targetEndpoint = "MessageBrokerPort"
>   destinationName="GATEWAY_INPUT_Q"
>   connectionFactory="#connectionFactory"
>   useMessageIdInResponse="true"/>
>
> The exception im getting from service mix is 
> "java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Null operation in JBI message exchange", 
> which makes sense as it isnt there in the new version, whats the alternative 
> to this? This all works fine with the old endpoint so is there an equivalent 
> to do what the old one does?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Ian
>
>

Reply via email to