Return-Path: 
 <users-return-49009-apmail-camel-users-archive=camel.apache.org@camel.apache.org>
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 E4E06110C9
	for <apmail-camel-users-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Sat, 31 May 2014 14:44:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 2457 invoked by uid 500); 31 May 2014 14:44:46 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@camel.apache.org
Received: (qmail 2405 invoked by uid 500); 31 May 2014 14:44:46 -0000
Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:users-help@camel.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@camel.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:users@camel.apache.org>
List-Id: <users.camel.apache.org>
Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list users@camel.apache.org
Received: (qmail 2396 invoked by uid 99); 31 May 2014 14:44:46 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:44:46 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=5.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of happyuser828612@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.128.196 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.128.196] (HELO mail-ve0-f196.google.com)
 (209.85.128.196)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 31 May 2014 14:44:43 +0000
Received: by mail-ve0-f196.google.com with SMTP id oz11so886180veb.7
        for <users@camel.apache.org>; Sat, 31 May 2014 07:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=uqtgzH3zpeMJF7Plvn7EokfnZw/0l+BPdPne5cxeVKM=;
        b=P6LSDAMFHWGlcUui65TijXGpTsf2P0qb8M/kRdPYhHAme/Qt2H373RHLfTn5l8ZZPc
         gDwrifjuD8prfvxPL64yI+oI2L98HVA5t8zvb2nj6xcIQFWx9KqBFX9yPbllLlmgrrl0
         DSZXicUz3eYR+z/Q2yCA7GMtj7tDa591snbIFh1lQ46T7MhTFVFsUiLFAVaZ6efJBUaH
         kAzTPggPHoiszUGJxadHerN9y2eaCTcbbltoL1uZgO2U4iGsMLBpFHxXIbf9IrplAALd
         eXKcU3DjOZoKDq3JKsw0/xc3XsBixCpa9J9J3OuNK+5myBL1PVx19o4ebPKWjxkBNat+
         Lstg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.230.34 with SMTP id sv2mr552490vdc.57.1401547459463; Sat,
 31 May 2014 07:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.58.245.133 with HTTP; Sat, 31 May 2014 07:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E376336-923E-45F6-AD17-20A495E6F958@icloud.com>
References: 
 <CABrS1qL-pWtM7-W32-7_+zvC7E8uasOK-qY69_Mv-kuMHq16XQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E376336-923E-45F6-AD17-20A495E6F958@icloud.com>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 20:14:19 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CABrS1qJBBZOi6y43jHdGuct6ekAOnV_upmeOA0Gx+i+Pa28_qw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pls Help - Wiretap Pattern
From: Happy User <happyuser828612@gmail.com>
To: "users@camel.apache.org" <users@camel.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0102f9ea75102204fab332ba
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--089e0102f9ea75102204fab332ba
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thank you..

On Friday, May 30, 2014, Mark Frazier <mmfrazier@icloud.com> wrote:

> Short answer to 1) yes.
>
> Assuming I=E2=80=99m understanding you correctly, if your first route is =
an inOut
> exchange, then the response from
> webserviceURI will be sent back, it will be done independently of the
> exchange being sent to the second route.
>
> The second route will be executed in a separate thread, and that exchange
> will be inOnly.
>
> Ie, they will run in parallel .
>
> http://camel.apache.org/wire-tap.html
>
> On May 29, 2014, at 8:00 PM, Happy User <happyuser828612@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > Example scenario - External caller calls the blueprint and bp has 2
> routes.
> >
> > <route1>
> > <from uri=3D"triggerURI"/>
> > <to uri=3D"webserviceURI"/>
> > <wiretap uri=3D"direct:secondRoute"/>
> > </route1>
> >
> > <route2>
> > <from uri=3D"direct:secondRoute"/>
> > <log message=3D"Second Route"/>
> > </route2>
> >
> > QNS:
> >
> > 1. wiretap send a response(came from the webserviceURI) to external
> caller
> > back and call the second route as well - Is my understanding correct?
> > 2. if yes, will we be able to enforce a condition that wiretap should
> send
> > response to external caller first and then should proceed with second
> > route?. If that enforcement is not achievable by wiretap, which pattern
> > should i use to return response to caller as we as proceed with the nex=
t
> > route?
> >
> > -Thanks
>
>

--089e0102f9ea75102204fab332ba--