I've found an issue reported already : https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-217
What do you think of blocking an exchange by aggregator processor as in delayer processor? Processing could be continued after aggregating Piotr RomKal wrote: > > 2008/4/10, Piotr Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I'm not sure whether stateful processors e.g. aggregator or resequencer >> are >> persistent and reliable in case of system crash. >> I'm using Camel inside Servicemix. When i send some messages which are >> passed through aggregator and resequences i notice that enclosing JMS >> session is closed and JMS message is commited. >> Anyone can help? > > Unfortunately current aggregator and resequencer patterns are not > persisten and reliable. > Would you like to create JIRA issue for this to track this requirement? > >> There has been a post already but with no answer: >> >> http://www.nabble.com/Better-Aggregator-support-td12564277s22882.html#a12564277 > > In fact this post asks two different questions - one for persistence > and second one for 'completedPredicate()' that is already implemented. > > Roman > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Aggregator-resequencer-reliability-tp16617652s22882p16627875.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
