[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-14?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=44831#action_44831
]
Charles Moulliard commented on CAMEL-14:
----------------------------------------
Be careful, what you propose (pool(5,15)) can generate confusion in the head of
the users because actually, you can define the number of thread that you want :
from("activemq:queue:SOMETHING").thread(5).process(new
ExpensiveMessageEnricher()).to("activemq:queue:SOMEWHERE_ELSE");
Personally, what you request already exist except that we cannot now define the
limit of the thread to be created.
If you want to process tasks in // (parallel), you can use the multicast EIP
(http://activemq.apache.org/camel/multicast.html).
> add ability to pool routes/steps for parallel processing
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CAMEL-14
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-14
> Project: Apache Camel
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: camel-core
> Reporter: Noah Nordrum
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>
> If you have a route that goes through a processor that is expensive, you may
> want to pool that processor so it's not holding up the rest of the route.
> Configuration could look as such:
> {code:java}
> from("activemq:queue:SOMETHING").pool(5 [min], 15 [max]).process(new
> ExpensiveMessageEnricher()).to("activemq:queue:SOMEWHERE_ELSE");
> or
> from("activemq:queue:SOMETHING").process(new
> ExpensiveMessageEnricher()).pool(5 [min], 15
> [max]).to("activemq:queue:SOMEWHERE_ELSE");
> {code}
> I'm not sure exactly how these would differ, but I think the first one would
> have 5-15 MQ queue listeners, which would all go through 1 EME, and then
> through 1 mq producer, and the second would have 1 mq listener that would
> dispatch to one of the 5-15 EME threads (if available?, not sure if that
> level of interaction between steps is good), and then go through 1 mq
> producer.
> Seems like the first would be the better option as I write this...
> Notes from IRC convo with James:
> first thought is; we might wanna wrap a Producer in a factory thingy that
> does pooling (e.g. like the way spring does pooling using interceptors etc);
> but that the pool part could be done wherever a Processor can be used
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
