On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Charles Moulliard wrote:
> Can I put a "content message router" between the split() and the end() ?
Yeah you should be able to nest as your like. So give it a try.
If it gets to complex in one route, you can split it into smaller sub
routes and link using "direct"
Can I put a "content message router" between the split() and the end() ?
e.g.
*from("queue:in")* --> contain list of Order POJOs. Each list represents an
unit (coming from a file) and must be processed as such
...
*transacted()* --> order saving in the DB and list of POJOs to be put in the
queues
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Charles Moulliard wrote:
> How can I represent this : split((body(), new MyOrderStrategy()) in EIP
>
> Icon split followed by an aggregator icon ?
> How to represent the end in EIP ?
I would use the composted message processor icon. See the icon on the
overview pag
How can I represent this : split((body(), new MyOrderStrategy()) in EIP
Icon split followed by an aggregator icon ?
How to represent the end in EIP ?
Charles Moulliard
Senior Enterprise Architect
Apache Camel Committer
*
blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com
On Tue
For sure, otherwise is missing.
Thxs for all these clarifications.
Charles Moulliard
Senior Enterprise Architect
Apache Camel Committer
*
blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:21 AM,
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Charles Moulliard
wrote:
> Very interesting the example of split + request/reply
>
> Questions about this example :
> 1) Are the messages processed in the same thread using the split +
> aggregator + request/reply ?
Yeah but it does not have to be request/reply i
Very interesting the example of split + request/reply
Questions about this example :
1) Are the messages processed in the same thread using the split +
aggregator + request/reply ?
2) Can we // the threads for this split (this could be required due to
performance issues, ...) ?
3) Can we add tran
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Charles Moulliard
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm faced to the following problem that I want to solve without creating
> something too much complex :
>
> A collection of orders contained in a message is first splitted. Each
> individual order based on its type is routed and
Hi,
I'm faced to the following problem that I want to solve without creating
something too much complex :
A collection of orders contained in a message is first splitted. Each
individual order based on its type is routed and processed separately. The
next step consists in to check if all the orde
