Hi James,
Thanks for the information. I liked your reasoning enough that I am now using CorrelationID in place of GroupID with equal ease. The issue that caused the rising of this mail seems solved for the moment. But, I m facing certain problems using temporary queues for transient responses. Initiating this issue with a new context. See you there :)
That sounds fine - it doesn't really matter what header you use as the 'correlation token', you could make up your own header if you wish. Though the reason I said to use JMSCorrelationID was that most well behaving JMS services should always copy the JMSCorrelationID from any incoming message and apply it to the outbound message. So using JMSCorrelationID is more loosely coupled & should work with any JMS service. In this case on the client side (A, B, C) there is no real gain in using Message Groups - which are designed to perform sticky load balancing of requests - since you are already using a selector meaning that there will be only 1 consumer of a message so nothing to load balance. You might want to use message groups on the service side of things - the Z - so that you could perform sitcky load balancing if you have a pool of Z consumers.
THANKS IN ADVANCE
Regards, Navin
