Hi

Thanks for your answer. Now that I read a bit more the pattern I see that
actually Recipient List is the one appropriate to me, specially if it
supports the InOnly pattern.

In any case I can also imagine the case of RoutingSlip applied in this
fashion as InOnly

Perhaps it could be a useful option

Carlos


janstey wrote:
> 
> Using the InOut MEP for each recipient was by design. Since the message 
> (with attached routing slip) will pass in and out of each recipient 
> (with the exception being the last), InOut should be set.
> 
> Do you require that endpoints be routed to in sequence? If not, maybe 
> the Recipient List EIP would be more appropriate as in supports InOnly.
> 
> I haven't yet read the (long) thread you mentioned so maybe I'll have a 
> different response when I get more context :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Jon
> 
> Carlos Quiroz wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I have been trying to use the new RoutingSlip to do something similar as
>> what is describe in:
>>
>> http://www.nabble.com/TimeoutException-when-using-ReplyTo--td15043879s22882.html
>>
>> RoutingSlip was my last item in the chain and it basically redirects
>> messages to one or more activemq:queueName destinations
>>
>> If found the issue that all messages sent when using routing slip would
>> include a reply-to header an I'd get the same behaviour as described
>> above.
>>
>> After tracking this problem for a while I found that the reason is that
>> Routing Slips sets the exchange pattern as InOut as follows
>>
>>              for (String nextRecipient : recipients) {
>>                      Endpoint<Exchange> endpoint = resolveEndpoint(exchange,
>> nextRecipient);
>>                      Producer<Exchange> producer = 
>> producerCache.getProducer(endpoint);
>>                      Exchange ex = 
>> endpoint.createExchange(ExchangePattern.InOnly);
>>
>>                      updateRoutingSlip(current);
>>                      copyOutToIn(ex, current);
>>
>>                      producer.process(ex);
>>
>>                      current = ex;
>>              }
>>
>> When I change this to ExchangePattern.InOnly this works fine.
>> Is this behavior by design? Can this be made customizable?
>>
>> Regards
>> Carlos Quiroz
>>   
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/RoutingSlip-exchange-pattern-tp16679324s22882p16701017.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Reply via email to