On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Harald Wellmann <hwellmann...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, I read the Javadoc. I have a test case which deterministically breaks > when replacing 2) by 1). > > Given that SJMS is not yet released, should I create a JIRA issue, or post > the details somewhere else? >
Yeah if you can create an unit test for the camel-sjms that shows the issue, then that would be good. Then we can add that test as part of a fix. Feel free to log a JIRA and attach the unit test / patch http://camel.apache.org/support > Best regards, > Harald > > > Am 10.02.2013 06:51, schrieb Claus Ibsen: > >> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Harald Wellmann <hwellmann...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> I'm rather confused by the different flavours of InOut. >>> >>> What's the difference between >>> >>> 1) from("direct:calculatorProxy") >>> .inOut("sjms:calculator-queue"); >>> >>> and >>> >>> 2) from("direct:calculatorProxy") >>> .to("sjms:calculator-queue?exchangePattern=InOut"); >>> >>> inOut() in 1) does not seem to make any difference from to() at all. >>> >> >> Its the same. >> >> There is a couple of ways of doing this. See the request-reply eip >> pattern. >> http://camel.apache.org/request-reply.html >> >> And when using Java code, you can also read the javadoc of the methods >> as well as they may also contains some information. >> >> >> >> >>> Best regards, >>> Harald >>> >> >> >> > -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- Red Hat, Inc. FuseSource is now part of Red Hat Email: cib...@redhat.com Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: davsclaus Blog: http://davsclaus.com Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
