Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
SI different with mule Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SI different with mule

    hi, I try to using spring integration, but I found:

    in the mule, I can start websevice in the mule directly without any implementation, then mule will route my soap messages directly.

    but in the SI, I have to write a webservice impl, then send messages to channel by code.

    same for RMI and httpinvoker, is it right?

  • #2
    I don't think I fully understand your question, but you might want to look at the Reference Manual section covering Spring Integration's Web Service support:
    http://static.springsource.org/sprin...erence.html#ws

    Specifically, have a look at the namespace support section.

    With Spring Integration, you don't have to *implement* a Web Service since the actual Spring Web Service Endpoint implementation is provided by the framework. You only have to configure that and connect it to a channel. I'm pretty sure you are only asking about the "inbound" Web Service support, but you also mention *sending* to a channel. Can you clarify what you are looking for?

    Comment


    • #3
      yes, you are right, I mean "inbound". sorry, I am not good at English。
      I can not found url in inbound config

      Comment


      • #4
        Okay, I understand. The way that it works is that URL-mapping is driven by Spring Web Services. If you look at the Spring WS documentation you will see the servlet configuration and more information on endpoint mapping:
        http://static.springsource.org/sprin...ml/server.html

        What Spring Integration provides is the actual Endpoint implementation, so that all you need to do is provide the configuration (not your own implementation).

        Hope that helps.

        Comment


        • #5
          thank you very much

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi

            The "problem" with Spring-Int (comparing to Mule) is it's clear and beautiful architecture.

            With Mule you "just" declare endpoint with "jetty:" or "axis:http:" scheme and you get server endpoint/connector/listener. In practise (I'm using Mule since 1.2) there are always problems with such implicit, "endpoint/component oriented" integration architecture (e.g. why th #&$^ Axis can't find my classes while deserializing SOAPs!?).

            With Spring-Int you won't get implicit servlet/http server implementations which is required by "http-oriented" endpoints (such as web services inbound gateway). But try using:
            - embedded Jetty in Spring-Int configuration passing it DispatcherServlet/MessageDispatcherServlet
            - Spring-Int configuration embedded in standard servlet in WAR application
            and you'll be amazed how clean solution you get

            regards
            Grzegorz Grzybek

            Comment

            Working...
            X