Hi, Mick Knutson wrote: > But each SM component can use camel to route internally, then rely on SM to > route to the other SM component right? Yes > > But it would not be a pure camel routing, but you could still distribute > different services. Yes >
Willem > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Willem Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> You can get the 2 different SM engines connected by using the SM's >> components not the camel components. >> >> Willem >> >> Mick Knutson wrote: >>> If you have 2 different SM engines, you could have camelAppA running on >> 1, >>> then camelAppB running on another one. Could you not at that point route >>> from camelAppA to camelAppB? >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Willem Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Please see my comments in the mail. >>>> >>>> Drone42 wrote: >>>>> Have I understood it correctly; >>>>> >>>>> - A CamelContext runs as one application. >>>> Yes >>>>> - A given instance is thus local. >>>> Yes >>>>> - If I want a route in a distributed network, then I can use for >> example >>>>> ServiceMix to integrate Camel instances into a system managing the >>>> complete >>>>> flow >>>> You could use camel-activmq, camel-cxf even camel-file components to >>>> build up the distributed network endpoint and using the camel DLS to >>>> build the route rule. >>>> AFAIK ServiceMix's components are stay in the same JVM. >>>> >>>> Willem >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
