camel-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Leuthold <michael.leuth...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: <to "bean:xxx" or not <to "bean:xxx" .... - Getting clarity on bean scope
Date Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:07:06 GMT
Spring-Web has the notion of a "request-scope", which binds the
lifetime of the instance to a Thread. That's likely what you want. As
soon as you spin-off a new Thread within you route (using async
components, like seda, jms or similiar) Spring would create a new
instance.

However, not sure if this scope requires a Web-Context. But at least
maybe you could roll your own based in that one.




On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:48 PM, David Karlsen <davidkarlsen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe create an instance and stick it into a camel header (the header will
> follow the exchange, and thus the lifecycle of passing through the route).?
>
>
> 2014-07-29 22:10 GMT+02:00 rickaroni <rgfanta@directv.com>:
>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> I hear you.  The trouble is, sometimes the intermediate transports (e.g.
>> the
>> Camel Salesforce component) hijack the header and body for their own needs
>> and you don't have full control over them.
>>
>> In similar ESBs, I've seen some shops make their own custom Spring message
>> scope to be the lifetime of (the equivalent of) a route.
>>
>> That works pretty nicely when it's needed.  I was hoping to avoid having to
>> write this myself, but can if needed.
>>
>> Thanks a lot,
>> Rick
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/to-bean-xxx-or-not-to-bean-xxx-Getting-clarity-on-bean-scope-tp5754593p5754609.html
>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> David J. M. Karlsen - http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidkarlsen

Mime
View raw message