veryone for their help!
Seth
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Seth Call wrote:
> Hi Illtud,
>
>
> Essentially I have no natural hierarchy. The issue is that these
> workers will generally interoping with 3rd-party services, meaning
> it's very hard to know upfront what the
y path is clear. If I
wanted to do A and D, then I have a problem, sure, but the idea here
is that I shouldn't need to once I know my 'realistic hierarchy' if
that makes sense.
Good suggestion, thanks very much.
Seth
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Illtud Daniel wrote:
> O
Not sure yet. I'll definitely dig into the DLC as much as I can go.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Seth Call wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Let me describe my end-goal, and see what you all think:
>
> I have this concept of a 'worker', which is on the consuming end of a
>
Hi all,
Let me describe my end-goal, and see what you all think:
I have this concept of a 'worker', which is on the consuming end of a
JMS queue. The idea is that I'd like to have many of these workers
deployed.
At the same time, there are different types of work to be done, and a
worker can do
Thanks so much Claus, Ashwin, and the folks in IRC over the past 2
days. It works with 2.5!
The code I used is below. I put this up on my blog for others, as well.
Route and Inline Consumer
// whenever message is sent to a.test, our AsyncProcessor defined
here will fire
from("jms:queue:a.t
Claus! I totally missed the Async Engine page and the list of
'supported components'. I'll try out 2.5 snapshot to see if I can get
JMS to work. I see you've already done the hard work of making JMS
work https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-2970
And Ashwin, thanks for the continued
HI Ashwin,
I will try using replyTo. I will say, though, I have successfully
used JMS routes in the past that look like what I had there (with no
replyTo), and the response of the consuming end would be routed back
as a response. But it was synchronous (I was using direct: for the
initial produc
I'm a little lost on Asynchronous Processors.
My goal is to not use threads needlessly, so that's why I'm zeroed in
on Asynchronous Processors.
First off, is it fair to assume that JMS can be fully asynchronous
when using a request-reply schema? Assuming so, here' is my problem:
I don't really
On 2/24/10 10:05 AM, Seth Call wrote:
On 2/24/10 1:02 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
Hi
You can use the in flight registry to see if there is any message
ongoing in your route.
And then wait until there are no more before stopping.
But we could probably also add support for graceful shutdown on
On 2/24/10 1:02 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
Hi
You can use the in flight registry to see if there is any message
ongoing in your route.
And then wait until there are no more before stopping.
But we could probably also add support for graceful shutdown on
individual routes, leveraging the existing lo
10 matches
Mail list logo
