Hi Claus,
So what's the deal? This is certainly an incompatibility between 2.9.0 and
2.9.1/2.9.2? On 2.9.1/2.9.2 the producer and consumer don't communicate
when having the option on the consumer and not on the producer. This makes
upgrading Camel in my product from 2.9.0 to 2.9.2 difficult.
Takk,
Thomas
2012/5/8 Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com>
> Hi
>
> Yeah only the name of the queue ought to be enough.
> Its only on the consumer side the ?concurrentConsumers option matter.
>
> The only trick is though if you want the queue to have a fixed size,
> then its frankly the first endpoint
> created that dicate the queue size, eg if you use vm:foo?size=5000
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Thomas Johansen <thxm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Camel 2.9.0 apparently does not require that URI parameters are part of
> the
> > URI on both consumer and producer side of a VM queue, while 2.9.1 and
> 2.9.2
> > does. Is this by purpose or mistake?
> >
> > For example, I had a test which was using a ProducerTemplate to test a
> > route:
> >
> > template().requestBody("vm:MyReceiver", request);
> >
> > and the route:
> >
> > from("vm:MyReceiver?concurrentConsumers=1")...
> >
> > This worked in 2.9.0 but not with 2.9.1 and 2.9.2 until i changed the
> test
> > to do:
> >
> > template().requestBody("vm:MyReceiver?concurrentConsumers=1", request);
> >
> >
> > Takk,
> > Thomas
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> CamelOne 2012 Conference, May 15-16, 2012: http://camelone.com
> FuseSource
> Email: cib...@fusesource.com
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
>
