Hi Ben, looking at the discussion, I would say that our case falls exactly what Christian mentioned.
We need only one active instance running. Others are either deactivated or have their producers replaced by a dumb producer (/dev/null). The idea is that if the main node with the route dies, we notify (we are using jgroups) the cluster, another one takes the place and then changes it producer to a real producer. We even have a scenario where we will cache things on all consumers, so in case of failure nothing gets lost. If this ever goes into main camel development I could contribute with some of our code. I also like the idea of the DSL support this: from().exclusive().to() Regards On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:59 PM, boday <ben.o...@initekconsulting.com>wrote: > I ran into similar requirements and needed route level locking to > single-thread execution across routes that act on the same data. These > could be identical routes deployed in a cluster or different routes > altogether that "act" on the same data. > > I was planning on adding this to Hazelcast (see CAMEL-4397), but am still > investigating the options (see > > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/discuss-implementing-Locks-in-Camel-td4775904.html > this discussion ). My approach was geared towards blocking threads rather > than not starting routes altogether, but I think the motivation is similar. > Either way, Hazelcast seems to be applicable to both scenarios... > > Hopefully we can implement some form of this as I think the use case is > becoming more common as more people are using clustered deployments of > Camel > these days... > > > > ----- > Ben O'Day > IT Consultant -http://consulting-notes.com > > -- > View this message in context: > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Single-route-inside-cluster-tp4806241p4807354.html > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
