Thanks Harian Zbarcea:
Instrument will be useful. But being wrapped and execute twice for
single processor will be a waste;
Actually, I found this problem while debug and tracing a spring
configured camel route. At least in Camel 2.4.0 and using spring, it real
does wrap twice.
Maybe you could take a moment to debug and tracking a camel route ,
you will see it.
Or,you can turning on the "TRACE" level for logging, and checking
the Instrument Processor's output. You could see it;
Following is my route:
<route>
<from uri="direct:from" />
<bean id="id0" ref="bean1" method="normal" />
<to id="id0_1" uri="mock:result" />
<bean id="id1" ref="bean1" method="raiseError" />
</route>
But the trace result is : 2 of first bean, 2 of the "to" endpoint,
2 of the second bean and 1 for route;
-----Origin -----
Sender: Hadrian Zbarcea [mailto:hzbar...@gmail.com]
Date: 2010/12/2 22:21
Receiver: users@camel.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wast performance? Instrument Interceptor is wrapped twice for
each processor.
The InstrumentationProcessor is a delegate processor (aka interceptor) that
allows you do do before and after processing.
It is not really invoked twice (or I have to see a test case that does that,
the unit tests in camel I am aware of don't). It is invoked once, takes a
start timestamp, it delegates processing to the inner processor and then
takes the time diff and records it.
Now with a DelegateProcessor all this call is synchronous. Being actually a
DelegateAsyncProcessor, the call to the inner processor is done by the async
engine (see AsyncProcessorHelper.process()) which calls asynchronously on
the done() method. I assume this is what you see and interpret as a second
call.
This design is not wasting performance, quite to the contrary. It ensures a
better use of resources and scales much better with higher message volume.
I hope this helps,
Hadrian
On Dec 1, 2010, at 9:53 PM, ext2 wrote:
> Hi:
> Each camel processor will be wrapped with Instrument Interceptor
> twice. So for each process , the Instrument interceptor will be executed
> twice.
> It seems no use but waste performance;
> Why? Or a bug?
> Thanks for any suggestion.
>
>
>
