Hi Donald,
Yes, I believe this would work.
I would have to have a map with messages, where key = messageId and another
map where user ids are the keys and list of message Ids are the values.
This way I could handle it without all the JMS hacking I'm doing at the
moment.
Actually I was able to make my scenario work with ActiveMQ and Camel.
The only thing I needed to do was add exchangePattern=OutOnly to the from
queue.
Right now it looks like this:
errorHandler(deadLetterChannel("activemq:ActiveMQ.DLQ").maximumRedeliveries(0).redeliveryDelay(1).maximumRedeliveryDelay(1))
from("activemq:ActiveMQ.DLQ?recoveryInterval=1&exchangePattern=OutOnly").delay().expression(bean(DelayerBean.class,
"sendAtTime")).asyncDelayed().to("activemq:testQueue?recoveryInterval=1")
I've tried without the recoveryPeriod but it didn't work, so this have to be
there as well.
Anyway since I see the benefits of using solution you proposed I will go
with that and try to implement.
However this little snippet I pasted may be useful to someone someday ;)
Thanks,
Krystian
--
View this message in context:
http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Cannot-reply-to-a-message-routed-by-camel-tp3254431p3255378.html
Sent from the Camel - Users (activemq) mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
