On 10/8/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/8/07, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/8/07, William Tam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ok i agree. But the problem is we are looking at the seda example
> > > > which does NOT populate the out message.
> > >
> > > Ok, I know seda component only supports in-only MEP and the producer
> > > process is considered done once the exchange is enqueued.
> > >
> >
> > Ok good.
> >
> > > I am kind of looking at the bigger picture. Suppose
> > > from("seda:queue").to("a") is my route and endpoint "a" supports
> > > in-out MEP. I'm afraid it is hard for me to get the populated
> > > exchange back from of "a". I realize that you are advising me not to
> > > use seda componet and I have no problem with that. So, is SEDA
> > > strictly an in-only MEP architecture or is it a Camel impl specific?
> >
> > Since you acknowledge that seda supports in only exchanges, why do you
> > find it odd that its "hard for me to get the populated exchange back
> > from of "a".
> >
> > I think that perhaps our seda component is miss named. I think that
> > your are thinking of the SEDA pattern and that this component should
> > fully support it. Unfortunately it does not. Would everything be
> > more clear if the seda: component was renamed to memory-queue: ?
>
> +1. Anything but SEDA. vm:// sounds good too imho, or queue://.
> SEDA is confusing.
>
+1 queue://
