The route is created once before Camel is started and hence the bean
is created once.
And there is no way currently to say the scope is "per thread".
Camel provides a pool you can use if you want to go down that path: ServicePool
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Ron Smith wrote:
> The whole r
The whole reason for having an instance per thread is so that there won't be
shared state between the instances but there can be resources that are
reused for each Exchange that passes through the bean. There are/could be
many resources that I want to have an instance per thread. For example, one
o
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Ron Smith wrote:
> I don't really want a new bean every time it is called. I just want one for
> each thread.
Why do you want to share state on the bean?
You can easily code a method which is thread safe by not using any
shared objects.
And what's there really to
I don't really want a new bean every time it is called. I just want one for
each thread.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Ron Smith wrote:
> > I have created a route like this:
> >
> > from("tibco:queue:myqueue")
> >.threads(10)
> >.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Ron Smith wrote:
> I have created a route like this:
>
> from("tibco:queue:myqueue")
> .threads(10)
> .bean(StepOne.class, "handleMessage")
> .bean(StepTwo.class, "handleMessage")
>
>
> I had been testing my app without the threads(). After adding the thre
I have created a route like this:
from("tibco:queue:myqueue")
.threads(10)
.bean(StepOne.class, "handleMessage")
.bean(StepTwo.class, "handleMessage")
I had been testing my app without the threads(). After adding the threads()
I was surprised to find that it still only creates one in
