Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CE8F4B47 for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 15:16:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 46901 invoked by uid 500); 9 May 2011 15:16:22 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 46824 invoked by uid 500); 9 May 2011 15:16:22 -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 46806 invoked by uid 99); 9 May 2011 15:16:22 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 May 2011 15:16:22 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.2 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RFC_ABUSE_POST,SPF_NEUTRAL,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: 216.139.236.26 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of hanson2010@gmail.com) Received: from [216.139.236.26] (HELO sam.nabble.com) (216.139.236.26) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 May 2011 15:16:16 +0000 Received: from [192.168.236.26] (helo=sam.nabble.com) by sam.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QJSBf-0007mH-4G for users@camel.apache.org; Mon, 09 May 2011 08:15:55 -0700 Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 08:15:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Hanson To: users@camel.apache.org Message-ID: <1304954155123-4382132.post@n5.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1304780051500-4378496.post@n5.nabble.com> Subject: Re: Necessity of transactional JMS component MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org So can I summarize as below? 1) TX and redelivery are not necessarily got introduced into a route at the same time; 2) In TX case, an explicit TransactionErrorHandler is not needed either. During a network failure(or any error) the transaction is immediately rolled back. Furthermore, can I configure the next trial interval? 3) In redelivery case, the redelivery policy can be precisely configured. But if the program shut down abnormally, the in-flight message must get lost, because they are not persisted or returned to the message consumer. ~Hanson ----- ~Hanson Java for food, Python for fun http://hanson.appspot.com/ -- View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Necessity-of-transactional-JMS-component-tp4378496p4382132.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.