Hi
Sorry to be silly with my question but i would like to know whether
inter-communication components like seda/direct to kick start my routers, I
do have configured ActiveMQ also but I didn't find any justification myself
to kickstart only with MQ when I need to start some routers (load on
startup) and doesnt need any from any consumer.
So, suppose I have three routers A,B,C
I would like to know, whether is it a right approach to do like mentioned
below,
from("seda:start").multicast().parallelProcessing().to("direct:a","direct:b","direct:c");
from("direct:a").from("remoteFTP1:///")
.routeId("ftpRoute1").to("file://{{sftp.destination.directory}}");
from("direct:b").from("remoteFTP2:///")
.routeId("ftpRoute2").to("file://{{sftp.destination.directory}}");
from("direct:b").from("remoteFTP3:///")
.routeId("ftpRoute3").to("file://{{sftp.destination.directory}}");
Because I read like "direct:XXX" is for synchronous communication but
multicast/parallel prosessing will be depricated in near future,
but "seda:XXX" for asynchronous but we can configure this to act as
synchronous and can be used for operations like "fire and forget" with added
advantage of parallelprocessing with concurrentconsumer attribute.
I see lot of examples using from("seda:start,direct:start... and it is
working for me in my local, but most of the stuff being using either using
activeMQ or external end point.
Is it right way of doing to kick start (just to use loadOnstartup) using
"seda:start" or "direct:start" (I would like to use "seda:start",since its
been written it supports concurrent operation)
Regards
Ashok Gudise
--
View this message in context:
http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Can-i-use-seda-start-or-direct-start-to-start-a-route-tp5741305.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
