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 willem.jiang@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.210.49 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4E2D1D3E.30503@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:37:34 +0800
From: Willem Jiang <willem.jiang@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@camel.apache.org
Subject: Re: Which combination of EIPs for this scenario?
References: 
 <CAAm9yXXZHSwyZ4TonHBi5S0nB5wvVK9rcKBUXYuCSKvsXUxK=g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAm9yXXZHSwyZ4TonHBi5S0nB5wvVK9rcKBUXYuCSKvsXUxK=g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

I don't know if you implement a new component for your socket 
integration instead of use the netty or mina component directly.

For the Camel producer, you can implement AsyncProcessor and let the 
callback.done be called when your producer got the response.

I think you should let the camel route do retry control instead of 
implement it in your component.

Willem

On 7/22/11 2:36 PM, Taariq Levack wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm doing some socket integration, there's an agreed handshake etc,
> then both parties can send and receive on 2 different ports.
> I have to keep track of the outbound messages so I can retry if I
> don't receive a response within
> the timeout limit.
>
> Now of course I can't use normal Camel retry DSL, because we send to
> the socket and receive on another port.
> So what I've started with, which isn't working really well hence the
> post, is a multicast to both the socket and an
> aggregator.
> The aggregator will maybe timeout and then send a message right back
> to the route that does the
> multicast to both socket and aggregator.
> In happy days it will correlate the socket's response and then be able
> to send this new exchange to another endpoint.
>
> Any better ideas while I panelbeat that some more, because I think it
> should work, it's simulating some async delays and whatnot in the test
> setup that I think is responsibly for me going a little bit grey here,
> but anyway.
>
> Thanks,
> Taariq
>


-- 
Willem
----------------------------------
FuseSource
Web: http://www.fusesource.com
Blog:    http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English)
          http://jnn.javaeye.com (Chinese)
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: willemjiang