Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org
Received-SPF: softfail (nike.apache.org: transitioning domain of
 walstrom@hotmail.com does not designate 216.139.236.26 as permitted sender)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: PJ Walstroem <walstrom@hotmail.com>
To: users@camel.apache.org
Message-ID: <1366868112584-5731502.post@n5.nabble.com>
Subject: InOut and JMS topic, does it make sense?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

hello,
we are using Camel 2.11.0 with the following route

from("activemq:incoming").inOut("activemq:topic:integrations").to("direct:storage").end()

my question is simply if this makes sense? We love the idea of using InOut
MEP and letting Camel generate temporary reply-queues. We have e.g. 10 JMS
Clients listening to the topic and all of them would like to send a reply,
but seems like Camel only handles the _first_ reply with the given
JmsCorrelationId, the following messages are just discarded and we get the
following error:

"Reply received for unknown correlationID
[Camel-ID-local-finn-no-60071-1366820228380-0-8]. The message will be
ignored"

Should we use inOnly instead? We use InOut to be able to preserve the
breadcrumb-id which we use for MDC logging (which Camel handles beautifully,
btw), but I guess we could just set that breadcrumb-id manually in a
postProcessor at the JMS Client side.

any thoughts would be highly appreciated!

regards,
Per Jorgen


--
View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/InOut-and-JMS-topic-does-it-make-sense-tp5731502.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.