On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:13 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > What if I want to do this the "camel way"? Is there any support in Camel > to handle this type of situation reliably without losing messages? >
Nothing is reliable. You would need to use for example Camel's dead letter channel, and send the messages to another JMS queue, which is the DLQ. And then use transactions so it appears as a atomic operation. > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:08 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> >> wrote: >> > What happens if you have a "poisonous" (just plain bad) message on the >> queue >> > and not a system outage? You'll continually put the message back on the >> > queue (by rolling back your transaction) and retry it, thereby blocking >> all >> > the subsequent messages in the queue. Right? >> > >> >> Yes, but a broker usually have a way to configure a upper cap, and >> move the poisonous message to a DLQ. >> This is broker specific and you need to read up on what your broker >> support. >> >> >> > -- >> > View this message in context: >> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Transacted-vs-DeadLetterQueue-tp5713992p5714078.html >> > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> >> -- >> Claus Ibsen >> ----------------- >> FuseSource >> Email: cib...@fusesource.com >> Web: http://fusesource.com >> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews >> Blog: http://davsclaus.com >> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen >> -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- FuseSource Email: cib...@fusesource.com Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews Blog: http://davsclaus.com Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
