Hi Ashwin,
Thanks for the response. However, I don't think this is what I need as this
appears to simply be a queue to queue communication which I can already do
with ActiveMQ. My situation has a connection factory that looks like:
<bean class="com.ibm.mq.jms.MQConnectionFactory">
<property name="transportType" value="1"/>
<property name="hostName" value="localhost"/>
<property name="port" value="1414"/>
<property name="queueManager" value="QM_TEST"/>
<property name="channel" value="QM_RECEIVER_CHANNEL"/>
</bean>
Without Camel playing a role, this is what I experience:
o without the channel property I can do queue to queue as I mentioned above.
That solution is not acceptable as all communications must be via the
sender/receiver channels. I know this exchange does not involve the receiver
channel as I have tested this scenario with the channel stopped.
o with the channel property I get exceptions from the Websphere side about
remote channels not being of the correct type when ActiveMQ starts. I assume
that's because MQ channels are an IBM invention and not a JMS concept, and
are therefore not dealt with correctly just by having a connection factory
defined as above. (If the channel is a server connection type then all is
well, but that doesn't satisfy the requirements.)
So now I'm turning to abstractions on top of JMS for solutions, such as
Camel, ServiceMix etc. Is there an abstraction in Camel (or anywhere else)
that allows me to deal with the QM_RECEIVER_CHANNEL?
--
View this message in context:
http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Can-Camel-communicate-over-IBM-MQ-sender-receiver-channels-tp4429050p4430351.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
