Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of marco.zapletal@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.161.45 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=c5Qm7S3g3s5wiiW0RHBStjMJfWEaavamuu7t0CTuhLxWM4zkv2nAVAKu4EZDtYCPjf
         e0kWuFslrbQ58+CxKT0u42IPeh4eo9Or1vFZuyy+yilIfFM8tPso/Dn9gTy3RH6jC/zQ
         lORD5PJrz5XAwHdgL4QCFO4kVrmfA/aY2jBDA=
Sender: Marco Zapletal <marcozapletal@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DF096DB.40206@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:48:11 +0200
From: Marco Zapletal <marco.zapletal@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@camel.apache.org
Subject: Re: Using properties or headers to persist meta information on the
 exchange?
References: <4DEFA20B.8000300@gmail.com> <4DEFA2C3.2030501@catify.com>
 <4DEFA500.2010500@gmail.com>
 <BANLkTinsu_rwCmrYuhcf8C3VLtt_hPyp+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4DEFB85F.8060109@gmail.com> <4DF04BDC.2070602@catify.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DF04BDC.2070602@catify.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Claus, thanks for your response. yes, it is quite obvious that in such 
cases, the headers will be lost (which would be the case for properties, 
too). I was just a little bit confused about the distinction between 
headers and properties, after reading the thread I cited [1].

Anyway, I will stick to headers, which seem to work fine for me.

regards,
marco


On 09.06.2011 06:28, Claus Straube wrote:
> Marco, I think it depends on what you want to do. Of course there're
> components where you will loose message headers. Look at the file
> component, hazelcast:map or a database component. Of course you'll loose
> here the message headers, because they're bound to camel (where should
> you store them if put a file on disk? ...or an object into data grid?).
> If you need these information in your business context you have to
> implement this.
>
> On 08.06.2011 19:58, Marco Zapletal wrote:
>> Yes, I've read that. Actually, I just wanted to keep my (String)
>> properties when the exchange goes through the JMS queue (similar like
>> headers are kept over JMS queues).
>>
>> If it is the intended behavior that exchange properties are stripped
>> away by the JMS component, I am fine with using headers instead.
>> However, this contradicts then in my opinion to the discussion in [1],
>> where it is mentioned that exchange properties should be used for
>> durable storing (serializable) meta information on the exchange.
>>
>> --
>> The problem with the non-serializable MessageInfo (which violates the
>> JMS spec) occurs only if I set the transferExchange property on the
>> JMS component to true (which I tried only as a workaround).
>>
>> regards,
>> marco
>>
>> [1]
>> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/How-long-do-the-camel-headers-live-in-routes-td474477.html
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08.06.2011 19:41, Claus Ibsen wrote:
>>> The JMS spec limits what can be send as JMS headers. Read more details
>>> on the Camel JMS wiki page. And for example in the JMS java doc.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Marco
>>> Zapletal<marco.zapletal@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for the quick response. Yes, I've tried this, but this opens up
>>>> another problem if you use a CXF endpoint on your route. The CXF
>>>> endpoint
>>>> seems to store an instance of
>>>> org.apache.cxf.service.model.MessageInfo on
>>>> the exchange, which is not serializable. This results in a runtime
>>>> exception, which cancels the execution of the process instance.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> marco
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08.06.2011 18:26, Claus Straube wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Marco,
>>>>>
>>>>> have you tried 'transferExchange=true' inside your JMS route? That
>>>>> could
>>>>> be a solution for your JMS problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards - Claus
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08.06.2011 18:23, Marco Zapletal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I learned from this thread
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/How-long-do-the-camel-headers-live-in-routes-td474477.html)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that one should use properties instead of headers in order to durable
>>>>>> store meta information on an exchange (acc. to one of the postings,
>>>>>> headers can get lost at endpoints).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to know whether this in principle correct. If so, I ran
>>>>>> into the problem that properties seem to stripped away if an exchange
>>>>>> goes through a JMS queue. Could anyone tell me what's the recommended
>>>>>> approach to keep meta information durable on the exchange.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> marco
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>