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 jason.dillon@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender)
Sender: Jason Dillon <jason.dillon@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Complex_app=85_1_context_or_many=3F?=
From: Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALvzYd8d=-EHU6KNFNaKCYBCWs68MKFPz2-eA_Smu5BOOyRSKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 18:02:07 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <94D8B940-484A-41C0-A9AE-98B17CEE1417@planet57.com>
References: <4D6C0575-3557-40FF-B25E-2E1E16CDEE23@planet57.com>
 <CALvzYd8d=-EHU6KNFNaKCYBCWs68MKFPz2-eA_Smu5BOOyRSKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: users@camel.apache.org

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

--jason


On Jan 8, 2012, at 3:20 AM, Christian M=FCller wrote:

> For bigger applications we also use multiple contexts and bridge the
> context via the Camel ActiveMQ component (batch and online requests) =
or via
> the Camel VM component (only online requests).
> By splitting it into smaller parts each context is easier to =
understand and
> test. In addition, the development process scales better because each
> developer has its own service/context/... with defined interfaces. My =
0,02
> $...
>=20
> Best,
> Christian
>=20
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>> I'm wondering what the best practice is for a complex application, =
where
>> many sub-systems (some related, some not) are using camel to process
>> messages, if it is best to have all of them share the same single
>> CamelContext or if its better to have more than one CamelContext to
>> partition the systems?
>>=20
>> Any advise?
>>=20
>> --jason