On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Christian Müller <christian.muel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Adam for this pointer. > I respond to this thread with an optimized version of the Camel route which > is about two times faster than the Spring integration solution. >
Btw the default request/reply with Camel JMS is using temporary queues, eg do not specify a replyTo queue name. The temporary queues is like exclusive, and fast. The shared queues are for clustered / and/or if the queue is used for other purposes/other apps etc. eg in some brokers its not easy/possible to create new queues on the fly etc. And the shared option was the default from the early days of the Camel project, and we have kept the shared as default since. Its of course documented in the JMS page. But I guess SI people don't read the docs http://camel.apache.org/jms (request/reply section) I logged a ticket to add some logging when shared queues are in use, so the end user may notice this more easier, than go read the JMS docs https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-5444 > Best, > Christian > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 4:52 AM, aedwards <a...@middleware360.com> wrote: > >> >> http://forum.springsource.org/showthread.php?128152-Spring-Integration-2-1-request-reply-benchmark-tests-showed-very-poor-performance >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/fyi-SI-tp5716049.html >> Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- FuseSource Email: cib...@fusesource.com Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews Blog: http://davsclaus.com Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
