Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 56342 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2010 20:29:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 5 Mar 2010 20:29:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 65055 invoked by uid 500); 5 Mar 2010 20:29:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 64935 invoked by uid 500); 5 Mar 2010 20:29:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 64923 invoked by uid 99); 5 Mar 2010 20:29:10 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:29:10 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.212.45] (HELO mail-vw0-f45.google.com) (209.85.212.45) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:29:06 +0000 Received: by vws19 with SMTP id 19so1632917vws.32 for ; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:28:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.124.221 with SMTP id v29mr504248vcr.90.1267820924443; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:28:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5380c69c1003042119n406e3535r359749c941a91635@mail.gmail.com> References: <5380c69c1003042119n406e3535r359749c941a91635@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:28:43 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Polling Consumer question From: John Landahl To: users@camel.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Claus Ibsen wrote: > John says at this thread > http://old.nabble.com/Activemq-component-und-Delayer-ts27784918.html > > That this questions is answered. But as the other person in that thread said, now we just have to wait for ActiveMQ 5.4. Reading through that thread gave me an idea that might work, though. I'm going to try a simple .filter() in the DSL, testing against a time value in a header that says when it's ok to re-process the message. If this doesn't work, I'll just write a bean as mentioned in the Polling Consumer page. - John