May 24th, 2010, 02:41 PM
Where are the TCP/UDP adapters and do they support interface setting
I've been looking around but can't seem to find where or how I get the <ip:inbound-channel-adapter /> into my Spring Integration 2.0 xml files. That is, STS provides me with all the possible aggregators and such but I don't see any ip:... tags, only int, int-http, and so on.
Also, do the TCP/UDP adapters allow you to chose which interface you want to use? I looked through the JavaDocs as well as the 2.0 reference manual and didn't see any mention of this. After looking at the interfaces I noticed there is a getSocket() I could use and then set the interface on the socket... this seems a little messy.
Last edited by soks86; May 24th, 2010 at 02:59 PM.
May 24th, 2010, 04:24 PM
This is a relatively new namespace; STS doesn't support it yet; you can, however, manually add the namespace to your spring config file.
Add one of the others (click the namespace tab and select, say, int-jms). Then go back to the source tab and change all occurrences of 'jms' to 'ip' in the xmlns and xsi:schemaLocation.
You will also need to either add the XSD to the XML catalog or, if you are running STS 2.3.2, you can go to Project | Properties | Spring | Beans Support and check the box 'Load Namespace Handlers and XSDs from project's classpath'. You may need to close/open your project for these changes to take effect.
Last edited by Gary Russell; May 24th, 2010 at 04:30 PM.
May 24th, 2010, 04:32 PM
I assume you mean network interface. Currently, no, there is no support to have an adapter listen on a specific interface. Please add a JIRA issue; I am about to make some other changes to the adapters so I can add this as well.
May 25th, 2010, 09:47 PM
Is there a particular reason there are no getter methods on a lot of the interfaces and classes?
May 29th, 2010, 12:15 PM
Which field(s) in particular are you interested in querying?
May 29th, 2010, 01:16 PM
I suppose any that have setters. I dunno, a lot of Spring and JavaBeans seem to usually have both. Just useful for debugging, logging, management, all that good stuff.
It almost seems unnatural when you compare the setters/getters in this class versus a standard Java Socket class. I'm not sure myself, it just seems that lacking them is the 'different' thing to do as opposed to simply having them.