Hi again Johan,
If you are referring to the nested classes, yes, as the patterns of
reusability have appeared I have refactoring the code base. My initial
efforts started with trying to develop the pooling logic in a more generic
manner external to the producer and consumer classes but all the po
Hi Johan,
For me It comes down to the same reason as "why not Spring"; reduce
external dependencies and influences, increased resiliency & simplified
maintenance. Aside from creating a Camel JMS component free from the
Spring messaging APIs and its known limitations, one of my principal goals
in
Also, are we paying attention to pool reusage in a container?
Another dumb question ;)
On Jul 9, 2012, at 21:53, Scott England-Sullivan wrote:
> Christian,
>
> I am looking into creating a new Apache Commons project for the messaging.
> As information becomes available I will let you know.
>
Is there any reason for not using commons pool then?
Just a stupid question.
On Jul 9, 2012, at 21:53, Scott England-Sullivan wrote:
> Christian,
>
> I am looking into creating a new Apache Commons project for the messaging.
> As information becomes available I will let you know.
>
> On Thu,
Christian,
I am looking into creating a new Apache Commons project for the messaging.
As information becomes available I will let you know.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Scott England-Sullivan
wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> I noticed after the fact that this was stated as a goal in the Camel
> ro
Hi Christian,
I noticed after the fact that this was stated as a goal in the Camel
roadmap. The thought was to develop the JMS API so it could be pulled out
to use as a commons project for reuse in CXF. For the moment the
implementation design consists of internal classes that allow the Camel
co
I wonder if it would make sense to check what parts of this impl could
be resused in cxf for the jms transport.
There we also would like to have a jms transport without spring and a
lot of the code should be pretty similar.
Christian
Am 03.07.2012 22:26, schrieb Scott England-Sullivan:
Hi All
Excellent suggestion. I will add it to the list of to-do's. Thanks for
the feedback.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:30 AM, aedwards wrote:
> wondering if you have considered allowing it to take a java "List", and
> then
> sending all the separate elements to the JMS provider as separate Messages
> w
wondering if you have considered allowing it to take a java "List", and then
sending all the separate elements to the JMS provider as separate Messages
within the same transaction? I wrote a small bean which does this for
performance reasons(since batching the transaction creates a noticeable
per
