[JBoss ESB Development] - Re: XPath Routing
by mvecera＠redhat.com
"tfennelly" wrote : "mvecera(a)redhat.com" wrote : "tfennelly" wrote : Just to be clear Kev... you want the XPath "rules" to be in an external rules file Vs being inline in the ESB config?
| |
| | I think that a message body part or a property should be able to carry the query as well.
|
| Sorry Martin... are you requesting to be able to define an "XPath" that queries other Message parts (other than the main message payload)?
Actually, this is a good idea, but it is not what I meant. You were discussing a place where the XPath query should be placed (external file, jboss-esb.xml). I think that is should be possible to specify a message part as a location. Like this:
<property name="XPathQueryLocation" value="message.body.myQuery" />
or
<property name="XPathQueryLocation" value="message.property.myQuery" />
|
For the dynamic query creation...
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4256449#4256449
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4256449
17 years
[JBoss ESB Development] - Re: XPath Routing
by tfennelly
"Kevin.Conner(a)jboss.com" wrote : "tfennelly" wrote : I don't think anyone was suggesting doing a C&P job.
| I'm certain you would not do that, rather you would abstract it out into another class and base it off of that.
|
| "tfennelly" wrote : So you want an attribute containing an alias of some sort on it Vs specifying the actual class?
| There is already an extension mechanism in that class and, although it may not be how you nor I would choose to do it if starting from scratch, there is no *technical* reason for changing it. It may not be the cleanest interface but it does the job.
|
| There are pros and cons to both approach and I'm sure there will be advocates for each. Lets stick with the 'status quo' though.
|
| Assuming there is no technical reason for moving away from the current mechanism then an attribute would appear to be the simplest way of specifying the types. It is certainly better than specifying the full class name as an override. Are there any alternatives to this?
|
| Kev
OK... thanks.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4256436#4256436
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4256436
17 years
[JBoss ESB Development] - Re: XPath Routing
by Kevin.Conner＠jboss.com
"tfennelly" wrote : I don't think anyone was suggesting doing a C&P job.
I'm certain you would not do that, rather you would abstract it out into another class and base it off of that.
"tfennelly" wrote : So you want an attribute containing an alias of some sort on it Vs specifying the actual class?
There is already an extension mechanism in that class and, although it may not be how you nor I would choose to do it if starting from scratch, there is no *technical* reason for changing it. It may not be the cleanest interface but it does the job.
There are pros and cons to both approach and I'm sure there will be advocates for each. Lets stick with the 'status quo' though.
Assuming there is no technical reason for moving away from the current mechanism then an attribute would appear to be the simplest way of specifying the types. It is certainly better than specifying the full class name as an override. Are there any alternatives to this?
Kev
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4256434#4256434
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4256434
17 years