camel-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Piotr Jagielski <pjagiel...@o2.pl>
Subject Re: Aggregator/resequencer reliability
Date Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:26:58 GMT

I've found an issue reported already :
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-217

What do you think of blocking an exchange by aggregator processor as in
delayer processor?
Processing could be continued after aggregating

Piotr


RomKal wrote:
> 
> 2008/4/10, Piotr Jagielski <pjagielski@o2.pl>:
>>  I'm not sure whether stateful processors e.g. aggregator or resequencer
>> are
>>  persistent and reliable in case of system crash.
>>  I'm using Camel inside Servicemix. When i send some messages which are
>>  passed through aggregator and resequences i notice that enclosing JMS
>>  session is closed and JMS message is commited.
>>  Anyone can help?
> 
> Unfortunately current aggregator and resequencer patterns are not
> persisten and reliable.
> Would you like to create JIRA issue for this to track this requirement?
> 
>>  There has been a post already but with no answer:
>> 
>> http://www.nabble.com/Better-Aggregator-support-td12564277s22882.html#a12564277
> 
> In fact this post asks two different questions - one for persistence
> and second one for 'completedPredicate()' that is already implemented.
> 
> Roman
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Aggregator-resequencer-reliability-tp16617652s22882p16627875.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message