Mailing-List: contact camel-user-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: camel-user@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <12387136.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: DominicTulley <dominic.tulley@telelogic.com>
To: camel-user@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Possible memory leak when using Camel in ActiveMQ
In-Reply-To: <af2843cd0708290613w1f9e4361oabf98a308522ea11@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <12384346.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <af2843cd0708290613w1f9e4361oabf98a308522ea11@mail.gmail.com>


The route I am currently using is:

from("activemq:AnnotateQueue").setHeader("HasHandler",
hasHandlerExpression).to("activemq:TOOL.DEFAULT");;

where hasHandlerExpression is a class I have implemented.  It contains the
following method:

	public Object evaluate(Exchange exch) {
		Message msg = exch.getIn();
		String key = (String)msg.getHeader("DocGuid");
		
		// Odd numbered docs have a handler
		 
		String handlerStr = RoutingTable.getDestination(key);
		boolean hasHandler = (null != handlerStr) && handlerStr.equals("true");
		
		msg.setHeader("HasHandler", hasHandler);
		return "" + hasHandler;

Finally RoutingTable.getDestination is simply a static method doing a
hashmap.get.

Hope this helps.

-Dominic


What route were you using?  That will us focus and the possible leaks
better.


-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Possible-memory-leak-when-using-Camel-in-ActiveMQ-tf4346921s22882.html#a12387136
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.