Interesting topic.
In our recent development work
we chose BPEL as part of an implementation
but BPEL cannot access JBI properties, which when we spec'd our
work, were going to be used as META data for the messages.
As it turned out, we came up with our own message format
<rootNode>
<properties>
<propertyName>value</propertyName>
...
</properties>
<payload>
.. actual XML ..., data, command request etc
</payload>
</rootNode>
and we marshal between our bespoke and JBI NormalizedMessage
when we need. (ie, shift properties to and from the message content
to NM properties when needed).
It posed some tricky decisions. Going forward for the use
we have, this custom normalisation is good, (meaning we have one WSDL for
BPEL messaging
etc .. ).
For Eg: when -http provides the response .. regardless of it's normalisation
we run it through a custom "normaliser" and then in BPEL would get
<rootNode>
<properties>
...
</properties>
<payload>
.. actual XML from servicemix-http ..
</payload>
</rootNode>
our two cents.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 07:50:15 -0700, Alex Boisvert wrote
> To tell you the truth, I was secretly hoping to spur a debate around
> message normalization. :) The way I understand it, if I start
> changing the message format put on the bus, it will most likely
> break other components that expect the older format.
>
> I'd be curious to hear what other think about this. Various
> components seem to use different normalization rules (or no
> normalization at all) which will inevitably lead to interoperability
> problems down the road. Time to set higher standards?
>
> alex
>
> Philip Dodds wrote:
> > Alex,
> >
> > I don't believe anyone is, and we would more than welcome a patch :)
> > just
> > create a JIRA and attach it
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > P
> >
> > On 7/18/06, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I've noticed that servicemix-http simply places the child element of the
> >> SOAP:Body as the content of JBI normalized message. This doesn't seem
> >> to go with the spirit of normalization... I would have expected a WSDL
> >> 1.1-wrapper element with message parts if I deployed a WSDL 1.1.
> >> document.
> >>
> >> Is anybody working on this yet? If not, I could volunteer for a patch.
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> alex
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)
