Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lbvenkatesh@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGB5yNmM7Ube6CeQLtK1u2mybeF7acK7DvhgXNmM+eSW4QHrNQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAFErLCEDQzJcRNiJLM+v4uidYzvmcbbFmROML=5_XjMMpwXi_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<D74243A3-6AF7-4E84-8914-FE10BF75C67C@fusesource.com>
	<CAFErLCHhmzkRsadJuLvQgo3675CVuZo9jbipE2N9gDmrE_PqMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGB5yNmM7Ube6CeQLtK1u2mybeF7acK7DvhgXNmM+eSW4QHrNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 23:26:16 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAFErLCGJbP2-uGLGqHHtujiOtoxSNMoT0cUWkVj-DMDJJYdu2g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Redelivery not happening at the point of failure
From: Venkatesh Laguduva <lbvenkatesh@gmail.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364173073f639b04af45f954

--0016364173073f639b04af45f954
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Thanks Claus, we are kind of divided our route - one as transacted and
another one as not transacted - so that we be in line with activemq
redelivery mechanism.

Btw, Camel redelivery mechanism seems beneficial as it re-starts at the
point of failure, why not activemq go that way?

Thanks & Regards
Venkatesh Laguduva

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ibsen@gmail.com> wrote:

> You have two different systems capable of doing redeliveries
> - ActiveMQ
> - Camel
>
> ActiveMQ will redeliver from the beginning of the route again
> Camel will redeliver at the point of the error
>
> ActiveMQ can only redeliver JMS messages (or the other formats it supports)
> Camel can redeliver any kind of message.
>
> So when using ActiveMQ and transacted, then its recommended to not use
> Camel redelivery at the same time.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Venkatesh Laguduva
> <lbvenkatesh@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well Torsten, we use Camel and redelivery always happen at the point of
> > failure.
> >
> > Thanks & Regards
> > Venkatesh Laguduva
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Torsten Mielke <torsten@fusesource.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Oct 11, 2011, at 2:10 PM, Venkatesh Laguduva wrote:
> >>
> >> > this time, message was tried from the start of the route instead of
> >> trying
> >> > from the point of failure
> >>
> >> Not sure I fully understand you but every message that is retried will
> be
> >> sent through the entire Camel route again.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Torsten Mielke
> >> torsten@fusesource.com
> >> tmielke@blogspot.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> FuseSource
> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
>

--0016364173073f639b04af45f954--