Hi Eduard,
I admit that set the message body
with("ex.getIn().setBody(outputStream.getBytes());") is not a good solution.
So let's work it out and I am looking forward for your contribution :)
BTW, you can fill a JIRA[1] for tracking it.
[1]
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMELCheers,
Willem
Eduard Hildebrandt wrote:
> Hi Willem,
>
> thanks for applying the patch. One of my customers is planning to use
> the next release of Apache Camel and CXF in production environment and
> this was an important bugfix for them. I'm looking forward for Apache
> Camel 1.4 :-)
>
> I have some additional comments:
>
> Using a byte-array as message body
> ("ex.getIn().setBody(outputStream.getBytes());") like I did works for
> in the demo. But as I mentioned before I think this is not an elegant
> solution. What happens if my service implementation expects a
> JMS-TextMessage?
>
> FEATURE REQUEST #1:
> It should be possible to configure the message type (TextMessage,
> BytesMessage, …) in JMS component. The current implementation can be
> the default behaviour. But if the user configure a JMS message type
> than the JMS component must convert the content in the requested
> message type format.
>
> FEATURE REQUEST #2 (depends on #1):
> If the user specify TextMessage as JMS message type than it must be
> possible to specify the encoding (UTF-8, ISO-8856-1, …) of the text
> message. This feature is tricky because if the content is a byte array
> then the JMS component does not know the current encoding of the data.
> Maybe we need an additional property in Camel context that specifies
> the encoding of the message content.
>
> Let me know what you are thinking about this feature requests. If you
> are interested I can try to implement these features and send you a
> patch.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Eduard
>
> 2008/7/9 Willem Jiang <
willem.jiang@...>:
>
>> Hi Eduard,
>>
>> I just applied the CXF part of patch in the Camel trunk, and I also did some
>> refactoring work take the common expression codes as utile method in
>> CxfSoapBinding.
>>
>> Thanks for your great demo, I take it as an integration test case for the
>> CAMEL-686 :)
>>
>> We have some discussion about how to handle the protocol header here[1], you
>> solution is very simple and effective for using camel transport in CXF. We
>> may go further by thinking the use case in a more common way.
>>
>> Thought?
>>
>> [1]
http://www.nabble.com/-PROPOSAL--ProtocolMessage-to18078001s22882.html#a18078001>>
>> Willem.
>>
>
>