camel-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Would appreciate advice on the best way to tackle a problem
Date Wed, 20 Apr 2011 02:10:24 GMT
Hi,

Christian is right, looks like jms should definitely be part of the solution. For the other
part, did you consider camel-bam [1]?
(The "b.starts().after(a.completes())" looks like what you're looking for).
 
Cheers,
Hadrian

[1] http://camel.apache.org/bam.html

On Apr 19, 2011, at 7:12 PM, alpheratz wrote:

> 
> Christian Schneider-3 wrote:
>> 
>> this would be quite difficult to achieve...
>> 
> 
> Yes. My colleagues are proposing a heath-robinson-ish mass of stored
> procedures and triggers but I would like to avoid spattering rubbish across
> our database if I can.
> 
> 
> Christian Schneider-3 wrote:
>> 
>> The question is do you really need to delay the message? 
>> 
> 
> Sadly, yes. 
> 
> I am trying to integrate with a 3rd party application that places this
> "Don't even think about sending me a message until I tell you that I have
> processed the previous one" requirement on me. 
> 
> Not good, but there it is.
> 
> It is not quite as bad as it sounds: there can be multiple message steams
> active at once but within a stream everything has to be strictly serialized;
> it's a master-detail situation. I send a master mesage and then can send
> subsequent detail records. These detail records have to be fully processed
> one at a time.
> 
> So it is not just about order but also about flow control, as you point out
> (thanks). I guess that this means that I can't just manipulate priorities as
> I first thought but need to play with the release strategies of a queue.
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Would-appreciate-advice-on-the-best-way-to-tackle-a-problem-tp4312202p4314564.html
> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message