[ 
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-14?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=44850#action_44850
 ] 

Claus Ibsen commented on CAMEL-14:
----------------------------------

Yes as Charles said there is a thread() DSL type that can be used for thread 
pool.

It has attributes you can configure (see ThreadType.java) for instance it has a 
max size property:
 private Integer maxSize = 1;

Can't you just append the options using the fluent builder?

{code}
from("activemq:queue:SOMETHING").thread(5).setMaxSize(15).process(new 
ExpensiveMessageEnricher()).to("activemq:queue:SOMEWHERE_ELSE");
{code}

I think thus we already have this feature in Camel 1.4

> 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.

Reply via email to