Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-camel-user-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 9491 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2008 15:27:29 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Apr 2008 15:27:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 5185 invoked by uid 500); 11 Apr 2008 15:27:30 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-camel-user-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 5088 invoked by uid 500); 11 Apr 2008 15:27:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact camel-user-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: camel-user@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list camel-user@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 5079 invoked by uid 99); 11 Apr 2008 15:27:29 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:27:29 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.6 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,WHOIS_MYPRIVREG X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:26:38 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JkL9W-0002cn-7o for camel-user@activemq.apache.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:26:58 -0700 Message-ID: <16627875.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:26:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Piotr Jagielski To: camel-user@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: Aggregator/resequencer reliability In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: pjagielski@o2.pl References: <16617652.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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 : >> 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.