Great explanation Claus. I answered in the SI forum to make this clear for them.
Best, Christian On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
