I ended up using DOM against the body of the message. Not sure if there's a better way.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Willem jiang <[email protected]>wrote: > I think you can try to use the CXF_MESSAGE data format. > This data format will consume the stream and invoke all the interceptors, > and you can get the full of soap message from the camel body, I think you > can get he soap header easily there. > > > -- > Willem Jiang > > Red Hat, Inc. > FuseSource is now part of Red Hat > Web: http://www.fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com > Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (http://willemjiang.blogspot.com/) > (English) > http://jnn.iteye.com (http://jnn.javaeye.com/) (Chinese) > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > On Thursday, August 1, 2013 at 1:26 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > I'm dynamically binding a CXF endpoint to a processor instance, using a > > route like this: > > > > from(simpleEndpointURI + > > > "?dataFormat=MESSAGE&wsdlURL=wsdl/Import.wsdl&loggingFeatureEnabled=true").process(new > > ImportProcessor()); > > > > I setup a simple way of reading this body using an InputStream, but this > > seems wrong. I'm trying to get the soap headers and the soap body of the > > message. I'm using MESSAGE dataFormat because I can't seem to get the > > mustunderstand to process correctly without it. > > > > From the docs: > > > > MESSAGEMESSAGE is the raw message that is received from the transport > > layer. It is not suppose to touch or change Stream, some of the CXF > > interceptor will be removed if you are using this kind of DataFormat so > you > > can't see any soap headers after the camel-cxf consumer and JAX-WS > handler > > is not supported. > > > > > > > > Which is fine for me, all I need is some data simply from the body. But > is > > it possible to access the headers? I see everything fine in the > > InputStream, but it would make more sense if this were available somehow > in > > a POJO/Java format. Is there a way I can use another dataFormat but get > it > > to generate the MustUnderstand properly? > > > > Thanks, > > > > John > > >
