There's 2 ways to do a reliable resequencer/aggregators. One is to use persistence and XA; the other is to use batching and transactions (i.e. on a failure, the transaction rolls back and the entire batch is replayed). The latter was the first option implemented; using transaction batches is less flexible - but it does avoid XA.
We could maybe still use persistence and avoid XA... http://activemq.apache.org/should-i-use-xa.html using the Idempotent Consumer to avoid duplicates? http://activemq.apache.org/camel/idempotent-consumer.html On 11/04/2008, Roman Kalukiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/4/10, Piotr Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I'm not sure whether stateful processors e.g. aggregator or resequencer are > > persistent and reliable in case of system crash. > > I'm using Camel inside Servicemix. When i send some messages which are > > passed through aggregator and resequences i notice that enclosing JMS > > session is closed and JMS message is commited. > > Anyone can help? > > > Unfortunately current aggregator and resequencer patterns are not > persisten and reliable. > Would you like to create JIRA issue for this to track this requirement? > > > > There has been a post already but with no answer: > > > http://www.nabble.com/Better-Aggregator-support-td12564277s22882.html#a12564277 > > > In fact this post asks two different questions - one for persistence > and second one for 'completedPredicate()' that is already implemented. > > > Roman > -- James ------- http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ Open Source Integration http://open.iona.com
