camel-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Bischoff <jbisch...@wdtablesystems.com>
Subject Re: Why do I get so many "external redeliveries" when using Camel with JMS topics?
Date Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:04:02 GMT
Thanks for this tip. I did notice in some cases that behavior of the route
improved if I explicitly set a transaction manager, though I wasn't sure
why that was the case.

As for clientID, I do not have one set on the older (non-Camel)
configuration. I'll try setting one and seeing if that helps.

Thanks,

Jeff

On 6/19/14 9:06 AM, "Minh Tran" <darth.minhster@gmail.com> wrote:

>Somewhere along the line, you¹ll need a clientId for topic subscriptions.
>I see one set for your camel connection factory and I suspect you have a
>client id for your non-camel subscriber on your Spring
>DefaultMessageListenerContainer. Make sure this is not the same client id
>as the one you put on your camel connection factory. I am guessing if you
>have the same client ids, you might see the behaviour you are seeing
>where one subscription¹s rollback/commit is affecting the other.
>
>Also I suggest enabling local transaction. It¹s the ³transacted² option
>on the activemq endpoint and the ³sessionTransacted² property on the
>DMLC. Pretty sure I read somewhere camel uses a DMLC underneath the JMS
>endpoint and according to the spring docs for DMLC,
>
>"It is strongly recommended to either set "sessionTransacted" to "true"
>or specify an external ³transactionManager""
>
>
>On 19 Jun 2014, at 12:17 am, Jeff Bischoff <jbischoff@wdtablesystems.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Same JVM, different connection factory.
>>
>> Do I need to explicitly set the clientId on each connectionFactory?
>>
>> This is what I have:
>>
>> <!-- For Camel -->
>> <bean id="topic-jms"
>> class="org.apache.activemq.camel.component.ActiveMQComponent">
>>  <property name="connectionFactory" ref="topicCF" />
>>  <property name="cacheLevelName" value="CACHE_SESSION" />
>>    </bean>
>>
>> <bean id="topicCF"
>>class="org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQConnectionFactory">
>>  <property name="brokerURL" value="vm://table-${table.entity.id}" />
>>  <property name="clientID" value="CamelTopic" />
>>    </bean>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <!-- Old, Non-Camel Subscriber -->
>> <bean id="jmsConnectionFactory"
>> class="org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQConnectionFactory">
>>  <property name="brokerURL"
>>
>>value="#{T(org.apache.commons.lang.StringEscapeUtils).unescapeXml('${acti
>>ve
>> mq.brokerUrl}')}" />
>>  <property name="prefetchPolicy" ref="amqPrefetchPolicy"/>
>>  <property name="optimizeAcknowledge" value="true"/><!-- acknowledge
>> batch inflight before processing completed; slight risk of message loss
>>-->
>>  <property name="alwaysSessionAsync" value="false"/>
>>    </bean>
>>    <bean id="jmsPooledConnectionFactory"
>> class="org.springframework.jms.connection.CachingConnectionFactory"
>>          destroy-method="destroy">
>>  <property name="targetConnectionFactory" ref="jmsConnectionFactory" />
>>  <property name="sessionCacheSize" value="10"/>
>>    </bean>
>>    <alias name="jmsPooledConnectionFactory"
>> alias="topicConnectionFactory"/>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On 6/17/14 7:33 PM, "Minh Tran" <darth.minhster@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is your non-camel subscriber running in the same JVM and using the same
>>> connection factory with the same client id?
>>>
>>> On 18/06/2014, at 1:59 AM, Jeff Bischoff <jbischoff@wdtablesystems.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not using a queue, just an AMQ topic. Was working fine before I
>>>> introduced
>>>> Camel, so I think I must be misconfiguring something in Camel.
>>>>
>>>> If I do <rollback/> everything works, but if I do <stop/>, then
my
>>>> non-Camel subscriber never gets the message. It's almost as if my
>>>>Camel
>>>> consumer is not actually creating a subscription on the topic, but is
>>>> instead stealing the message intended for my non-camel subscriber.
>>>>
>>>> Does it make sense that rollback would even work on this route? It
>>>>isn't
>>>> marked <transacted/> and the AMQConnector has no transaction manager
>>>> defined! Yet rollback seems to work.
>>>>
>>>>       <route id="configuration.topic-out">
>>>>                       <from
>>>>uri="table-jms:topic:configuration.topic"/>
>>>>                       <log message="Picked up message with id: ${id},
>>>> destinationType: ${header.DestinationEntityType}"
>>>>loggingLevel="INFO"/>
>>>> loggingLevel="INFO"/>
>>>>                       <choice>
>>>>                               <when>
>>>>
>>>> <simple>${header.DestinationEntityType} not in 'FOO,BAR'</simple>
>>>>                                       <log message="Detected new
>>>> ${header.Name} configuration.topic message on ${header.JMSDestination}
>>>> for
>>>> destination ${header.DestinationEntityType} with id: ${id}"
>>>> loggingLevel="INFO"/>
>>>>                                       <to
>>>> uri="lc-jms:topic:configuration.topic?requestTimeout=0"/>
>>>>                                       <log message="Successfully
>>>> processed message with id: ${id}, destinationType:
>>>> ${header.DestinationEntityType}" loggingLevel="INFO"/>
>>>>                               </when>
>>>>                               <otherwise>
>>>>                                       <log message="(otherwise)
>>>> ignoring
>>>> message with id: ${id}, destinationType:
>>>> ${header.DestinationEntityType}"
>>>> loggingLevel="INFO"/>
>>>>                                       <rollback
>>>>markRollbackOnly="true"
>>>> />
>>>>                               </otherwise>
>>>>                       </choice>
>>>>               </route>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Results in:
>>>>
>>>> [topic-out] (Camel (camelContext) thread #9 -
>>>> JmsConsumer[configuration.topic]) Picked up message with id:
>>>> ID:TS-0007-jbischoff-2.local-50312-1403019963746-1:2:3:1:1,
>>>> destinationType: TABLE
>>>>
>>>> [topic-out] (Camel (camelContext) thread #9 -
>>>> JmsConsumer[configuration.topic]) (otherwise) ignoring message with
>>>>id:
>>>> ID:TS-0007-jbischoff-2.local-50312-1403019963746-1:2:3:1:1,
>>>> destinationType: TABLE
>>>>
>>>> [EndpointMessageListener] (Camel (camelContext) thread #9 -
>>>> JmsConsumer[configuration.topic]) Execution of JMS message listener
>>>> failed. Caused by: [org.apache.camel.RuntimeCamelException -
>>>> org.apache.camel.RollbackExchangeException: Intended rollback.
>>>> Exchange[JmsMessage[JmsMessageID:
>>>> ID:TS-0007-jbischoff-2.local-50312-1403019963746-1:2:3:1:1]]]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/17/14 10:59 AM, "kraythe ." <kraythe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A JMS topic will send a copy of each message to every topic. If not
>>>>> then
>>>>> the system violates basic JMS spec. If the system is a mainstream
>>>>> system
>>>>> like ActiveMQ, then that is not your problem. If you are trying to
>>>>>use
>>>>> a
>>>>> queue as a topic it doesn't work that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> A queue is like throwing candy into the middle of a class of
>>>>>elementary
>>>>> kids. Each piece of candy will get consumed by only one kid but they
>>>>> will
>>>>> scramble for the pieces of candy as fast as they can. However, if a
>>>>>kid
>>>>> eats a piece of candy they can't regurgitate it and put it back into
>>>>> the
>>>>> pile.
>>>>>
>>>>> In your case if a route consumes a message on the queue, then it
>>>>>can't
>>>>> put
>>>>> it back on the queue, the only way it gets back there is if the route
>>>>> fails
>>>>> and rolls back.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try adding a log line or a DLQ to the otherwise and see what happens.
>>>>> And
>>>>> don't rollback in the otherwise. If you are using a queue, create a
>>>>> route
>>>>> to sort the queue into 2 other queues based on the criteria and then
>>>>> another route to process the queue where the relevant messages end
>>>>>up.
>>>>> i.e.
>>>>> from(my
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>queue).choice().when(predicate).to("jms:queue:camel-processed-queue).o
>>>>>th
>>>>> er
>>>>> wise().to("jms:queue:queue-processed-externally")
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Robert Simmons Jr. MSc. - Lead Java Architect @ EA*
>>>>> *Author of: Maintainable Java (Kindle
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><http://www.amazon.com/Maintainable-Java-Robert-Simmons-Jr-ebook/dp/B0
>>>>>0A
>>>>> KH
>>>>> I69K>)(iTunes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/maintainable-java/id585666097?mt=11>
>>>>>)*
>>>>> *LinkedIn: **http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-simmons/40/852/a39
>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-simmons/40/852/a39>*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Jeff Bischoff
>>>>> <jbischoff@wdtablesystems.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert, thanks so much for replying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Without that ack, the external system thinks it is not consumed
and
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> good faith tries to redeliver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, that seems like a good explanation for why I am getting
>>>>>>external
>>>>>> redeliveries!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess the root of my problem is that it seems like my Camel
>>>>>>consumer
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> competing with my non-Camel topic subscribers. To your question:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the question you have to decide to solve your problem is,
"What
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> route I want my messages to take if they are not in the when
>>>>>> condition.
>>>>>>> Do
>>>>>>> they end up in a dead letter queue? Routed elsewhere? Logged
to a
>>>>>> file?
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>> they have to end up somewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have non-Camel endpoints that will pick up the messages that don't
>>>>>> meet
>>>>>> the filter requirements. Ideally, I would have an "otherwise" that
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> nothing with the message (but does send the ack that it has been
>>>>>> processed). These particular messages do not need to be routed by
>>>>>> Camel
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> my system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, it seems like Camel is competing with my non-Camel
>>>>>>endpoints
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> consumer topic messages. I would have thought each subscriber (Camel
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the other subscriber) would get their own copy of the topic message,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> that they would not compete with each other. It seems like the
>>>>>> non-Camel
>>>>>> consumer can only process the message if I do a "rollback" in Camel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm building JUnit tests to try to figure out what I'm doing wrong,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> any further insight would be greatly appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/17/14 9:16 AM, "kraythe ." <kraythe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good suggestions but you will need to check the JMS server config
>>>>>>>if
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> are getting external redeliveries. Those happen when an external
>>>>>> system to
>>>>>>> the camel route performs a redelivery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for your original route, there must always be a place for
an
>>>>>> exchange
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> go or it will stop routing. In the case of your when without
>>>>>>> otherwise,
>>>>>>> what would be the path of the exchange that fails the when
>>>>>>>condition?
>>>>>> It
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> probably returned to the external system in some manner and not
>>>>>>>acked
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> being delivered so it is sent again. Without that ack, the external
>>>>>> system
>>>>>>> thinks it is not consumed and in good faith tries to redeliver.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Furthermore when you rollback, you are telling the host JMS system
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> did not consume the message, and it will try again of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the question you have to decide to solve your problem is,
"What
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> route I want my messages to take if they are not in the when
>>>>>> condition. Do
>>>>>>> they end up in a dead letter queue? Routed elsewhere? Logged
to a
>>>>>>> file?
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>> they have to end up somewhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Robert Simmons Jr. MSc. - Lead Java Architect @ EA*
>>>>>>> *Author of: Hardcore Java (2003) and Maintainable Java (2012)*
>>>>>>> *LinkedIn: **http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-simmons/40/852/a39
>>>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-simmons/40/852/a39>*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Minh Tran
>>>>>>><darth.minhster@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have used topics in camel and they generally work the way
I
>>>>>>>>expect
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would start by leaving the cache levels at the default
and
>>>>>> simplifying
>>>>>>>> your route further. eg take out the choice and send it direct
from
>>>>>>>> topic to
>>>>>>>> queue. Then add the choice but send it directly to the queue
>>>>>>>>without
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> recipient list. Also enable tracing on the camel context
so you
>>>>>>>>can
>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> what is happening to your message each step of the way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 17/06/2014, at 6:28 AM, Jeff Bischoff
>>>>>> <jbischoff@wdtablesystems.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does nobody use Topics with Camel? They don't seem to
work as
>>>>>>>> expected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/14 10:48 AM, "Jeff Bischoff"
>>>>>>>>><jbischoff@wdtablesystems.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Correction:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Why would *CACHE_CONSUMER* on the ActiveMQComponent
cause
>>>>>> endless
>>>>>>>>>> external
>>>>>>>>>> redeliveries of a (filtered out) topic message, when
with other
>>>>>> cache
>>>>>>>>>> settings (like CACHE_SESSION) this does not occur?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/14 10:39 AM, "Jeff Bischoff"
>>>>>> <jbischoff@wdtablesystems.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I need to narrow my questions:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Why would CACHE_SESSION on the ActiveMQComponent
cause
>>>>>>>>>>>endless
>>>>>>>>>>> external
>>>>>>>>>>> redeliveries of a (filtered out) topic message,
when with other
>>>>>>>> cache
>>>>>>>>>>> settings this does not occur?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Why would <rollback/> prevent the external
redeliveries, but
>>>>>>>> <stop/>
>>>>>>>>>>> does not prevent them?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did I provide enough info below to answer these
questions?
>>>>>>>>>>>Topics
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>> aren't working in Camel the way that I would
expect!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff Bischoff
>>>>>>>>>>> WDTS
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/14 4:25 PM, "Jeff Bischoff"
>>>>>> <jbischoff@wdtablesystems.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please forgive me if this is a basic question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Working with Camel and JMS Topics has seemed
very finicky for
>>>>>> me so
>>>>>>>> far.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I make slight configuration changes, I
see the same message
>>>>>>>> repeated
>>>>>>>>>>>> endlessly. Using jconsole, I now know these
messages are
>>>>>> "external
>>>>>>>>>>>> redeliveries", i.e. the same message is being
sent from JMS to
>>>>>>>> Camel
>>>>>>>>>>>> repeatedly without ever getting through.
It happens in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>case
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> messages that I am intentionally not processing
due to some
>>>>>>>> criteria.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What I don't understand is why these external
redeliveries
>>>>>>>>>>>>keep
>>>>>>>>>>>> occurring, when I simply want this message
to be dropped.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, if I use CACHE_SESSION or lower
cache level, the
>>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>>>>>> route works just fine for me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     <route id="topics-out">
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <from uri="topic-jms:topic:projectx.>"/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <log message="Picked up message
with id: ${id},
>>>>>>>>>>>> destinationType: ${header.DestinationEntityType}"
>>>>>>>> loggingLevel="INFO"/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <choice>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             <when>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <simple>${header.DestinationEntityType}
not in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'FOO,BAR'</simple>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <log message="Detected
new ${header.Name}
>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>>>> message on ${header.JMSDestination} with
id: ${id},
>>>>>>>> destinationType:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ${header.DestinationEntityType}" loggingLevel="INFO"/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <recipientList ignoreInvalidEndpoints="false">
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <simple>lc-jms:${header.JMSDestination}</simple>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 </recipientList>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             </when>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         </choice>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     </route>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, if I switch to CACHE_CONSUMER and
I have even one
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>> addressed to 'FOO' or 'BAR', I will see the
endless external
>>>>>>>>>>>> redeliveries. Note that I am using a SingleConnectionFactory
>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically
>>>>>>>>>>>> for this route.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     <route id="topics-out">
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <from uri="topic-jms:topic:projectx.>"/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <log message="Picked up message
with id: ${id},
>>>>>>>>>>>> destinationType: ${header.DestinationEntityType}"
>>>>>>>> loggingLevel="INFO"/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <choice>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             <when>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <simple>${header.DestinationEntityType}
not in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'FOO,BAR'</simple>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <log message="Detected
new ${header.Name}
>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>>>> message on ${header.JMSDestination} with
id: ${id},
>>>>>>>> destinationType:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ${header.DestinationEntityType}" loggingLevel="INFO"/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <recipientList ignoreInvalidEndpoints="false">
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <simple>lc-jms:${header.JMSDestination}</simple>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 </recipientList>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             </when>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         </choice>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     </route>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, if I add an Otherwise clause with a
Rollback, everything
>>>>>> works
>>>>>>>> fine
>>>>>>>>>>>> again (albeit with a handful of log messages
due to the
>>>>>> rollbacks):
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     <route id="topics-out">
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <from uri="topic-jms:topic:projectx.>"/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <log message="Picked up message
with id: ${id},
>>>>>>>>>>>> destinationType: ${header.DestinationEntityType}"
>>>>>>>> loggingLevel="INFO"/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <choice>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             <when>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <simple>${header.DestinationEntityType}
not in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'FOO,BAR'</simple>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <log message="Detected
new ${header.Name}
>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>>>> message on ${header.JMSDestination} with
id: ${id},
>>>>>>>> destinationType:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ${header.DestinationEntityType}" loggingLevel="INFO"/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <recipientList ignoreInvalidEndpoints="false">
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <simple>lc-jms:${header.JMSDestination}</simple>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 </recipientList>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             </when>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             <otherwise>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             <rollback markRollbackOnly="true"
/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             </otherwise>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         </choice>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     </route>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But if I change that Rollback to a Stop instead,
I get the
>>>>>> endless
>>>>>>>>>>>> external redeliveries again:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     <route id="topics-out">
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <from uri="topic-jms:topic:projectx.>"/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <log message="Picked up message
with id: ${id},
>>>>>>>>>>>> destinationType: ${header.DestinationEntityType}"
>>>>>>>> loggingLevel="INFO"/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <choice>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             <when>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <simple>${header.DestinationEntityType}
not in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'FOO,BAR'</simple>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <log message="Detected
new ${header.Name}
>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>>>> message on ${header.JMSDestination} with
id: ${id},
>>>>>>>> destinationType:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ${header.DestinationEntityType}" loggingLevel="INFO"/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 <recipientList ignoreInvalidEndpoints="false">
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <simple>lc-jms:${header.JMSDestination}</simple>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                 </recipientList>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             </when>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             <otherwise>
>>>>>>>>>>>>              <stop/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             </otherwise>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         </choice>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     </route>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why does rolling back prevent the unwanted
message from being
>>>>>>>>>>>> redelivered, while using "stop" causes the
redelivery to
>>>>>>>>>>>>occur?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively, I would have thought it would
work the opposite
>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rolling
>>>>>>>>>>>> back should put the item back on the "from"
endpoint, allowing
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> processed again. "Stop" should just drop
the message,
>>>>>>>>>>>>preventing
>>>>>>>> further
>>>>>>>>>>>> redelivery. What I'm actually seeing is the
opposite of this.
>>>>>> Am I
>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I also get the same exact symptoms if I leave
the cache level
>>>>>>>>>>>>at
>>>>>>>>>>>> CACHE_SESSION, but I make the subscription
durable. In that
>>>>>>>>>>>>case
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> rollbacks prevent the problem, but otherwise
I get the eternal
>>>>>>>> external
>>>>>>>>>>>> redeliveries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Using a Filter element also produces the
same results as using
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Choice
>>>>>>>>>>>> element above:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     <route id="topics-out">
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <from
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>uri="topic-jms:topic:projectx.>?durableSubscriptionName=testdurasub
>>>>>>>>"/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <log message="Picked up message
with id: ${id},
>>>>>>>>>>>> destinationType: ${header.DestinationEntityType}"
>>>>>>>> loggingLevel="INFO"/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         <filter>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             <simple>${header.DestinationEntityType}
not in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'FOO,BAR'</simple>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             <recipientList ignoreInvalidEndpoints="false">
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <simple>lc-jms:${header.JMSDestination}</simple>
>>>>>>>>>>>>             </recipientList>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         </filter>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     </route>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When I look at the topic in JMS, I see the
topic "projectx.>"
>>>>>>>> appearing
>>>>>>>>>>>> and disappearing in the list rapidly. I assume
that's caused
>>>>>>>>>>>>by
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Camel
>>>>>>>>>>>> polling frequency. It seems a little disturbing
to me; is that
>>>>>>>> normal?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks so much for taking the time to help!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeff Bischoff
>>>>>>>>>>>> WDTS
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please take note: This email, including attachments,
contains
>>>>>>>> information which may be confidential or legally privileged
and is
>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the use of the individual or entity to whom it is properly
>>>>>>>> addressed.
>>>>>>>> Any
>>>>>>>> unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution
is
>>>>>>>> prohibited. If you have reason to believe that you have received
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> communication in error, or that it may be misaddressed or
not
>>>>>> intended
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> you, please destroy it and notify the sender immediately.
Thank
>>>>>>>>you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please take note: This email, including attachments, contains
>>>>>> information
>>>>>> which may be confidential or legally privileged and is only for the
>>>>>> use
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the individual or entity to whom it is properly addressed. Any
>>>>>> unauthorized
>>>>>> review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is prohibited.
If
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> have reason to believe that you have received this communication
in
>>>>>> error,
>>>>>> or that it may be misaddressed or not intended for you, please
>>>>>>destroy
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Please take note: This email, including attachments, contains
>>>> information which may be confidential or legally privileged and is
>>>>only
>>>> for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is properly
>>>> addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying, or
>>>> distribution is prohibited. If you have reason to believe that you
>>>>have
>>>> received this communication in error, or that it may be misaddressed
>>>>or
>>>> not intended for you, please destroy it and notify the sender
>>>> immediately. Thank you.
>>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Please take note: This email, including attachments, contains
>>information which may be confidential or legally privileged and is only
>>for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is properly
>>addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying, or
>>distribution is prohibited. If you have reason to believe that you have
>>received this communication in error, or that it may be misaddressed or
>>not intended for you, please destroy it and notify the sender
>>immediately. Thank you.

________________________________

Please take note: This email, including attachments, contains information which may be confidential
or legally privileged and is only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is properly
addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying, or distribution is prohibited.
If you have reason to believe that you have received this communication in error, or that
it may be misaddressed or not intended for you, please destroy it and notify the sender immediately.
Thank you.

Mime
View raw message