"jim.ma" wrote : The mainly intention for it is we can make the Request/Response
class as a subclass of esb Message.
But why is this a requirement? What is wrong with using POJOs and populating a created
message?
"jim.ma" wrote : That's I need to consider . I do not know if it can do this
if we map the request object filed name to name location and the filed value to ESB part
value. For example :
| org.jboss.esb.Request extends XMLMessageBase {
| public String foo;
| public byte[] bar;
| }
To fit in with the current code it would be better if it was handled as follows.
payloadProxy = new MessagePayloadProxy(config)
and then something like the following
| Message message = MessageFactory.getInstance().getMessage();
| payloadProxy.setPayload(message, <incoming request>);
| ... evaluate pipeline ...
| Object response = payloadProxy.getPayload(responseMessage);
|
The payload proxy handles the details of previous message variants and also allows the
message locations to be specified.
One thing that would be required would be a change in the way the pipeline works. At
present the response/fault is handled asynchronously within the pipeline processing and we
would need to refactor this code to allow for request/response processing.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4146775#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...