Hi Thomas,
A plug-able transaction strategy is definitely on the road map for the
future. I will have to take a look and see what short term options might
work for this.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Scott England-Sullivan
<sully6...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I should be able to have something ready to go in with the next set of
> updates. I will let you know when it is completed.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Christian Müller <
> christian.muel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is at least "my" requirement.
>>
>> Sent from a mobile device
>> Am 07.08.2012 18:47 schrieb "Scott England-Sullivan" <sully6...@gmail.com
>> >:
>>
>> > Hi Thomas,
>> >
>> > It sounds like you are looking for something like the following:
>> >
>> > from("sjms:consumer?transacted=true&batch=100")
>> > .processor("do stuff")
>> > to("file:output");
>> >
>> > Such that 100 messages would be consumed, processed and filed followed
>> by
>> > the session either being committed or rolled back based on the success
>> or
>> > fail of all 100 exchanges.
>> >
>> > Sound about right?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Thomas Johansen <thxm...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'm not sure what this implies, Scott.
>> > >
>> > > My use case is to have a transaction started on a first exchange, and
>> > then
>> > > have X exhanges on the same transaction. It should first be committed
>> > when
>> > > some external event happens, like a control message is seen (possibly
>> > from
>> > > a separate control queue), after X number of messages or something.
>> I'm
>> > > sure Camel provides some options for mechanisms to use here? In my
>> case I
>> > > need to aggregate X records into a single file.
>> > >
>> > > Thomas
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Den 7. aug. 2012 kl. 14:50 skrev Scott England-Sullivan <
>> > > sully6...@gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > > > I will take a look at it tonight. Plan is to add batch support by
>> > having
>> > > > the Producer and Consumer endpoints support a List of Messages.
>> Once
>> > in
>> > > > place TX would be automatically supported as it is called as a
>> > > > Synchronization upon completion of the Exchange.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thoughts?
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Christian Müller <
>> > > > christian.muel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> +1
>> > > >> Would like to see this feature too...
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Sent from a mobile device
>> > > >> Am 07.08.2012 10:49 schrieb "Thomas Johansen" <thxm...@gmail.com>:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Hi,
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> As I understand the JMSComponent/ActiveMQComponent cannot support
>> > > batched
>> > > >>> transactions due to the use of Spring's DMLC. With this new
>> > > SJMSComponent
>> > > >>> there should be possibilities to implement this, I guess?
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> BR,
>> > > >>> Thomas
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > --
>> > > > Scott England-Sullivan
>> > > > ----------------------------------
>> > > > FuseSource
>> > > > Web: http://www.fusesource.com
>> > > > Blog: http://sully6768.blogspot.com
>> > > > Twitter: sully6768
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > --
>> > Scott England-Sullivan
>> > ----------------------------------
>> > FuseSource
>> > Web: http://www.fusesource.com
>> > Blog: http://sully6768.blogspot.com
>> > Twitter: sully6768
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Scott England-Sullivan
> ----------------------------------
> FuseSource
> Web: http://www.fusesource.com
> Blog: http://sully6768.blogspot.com
> Twitter: sully6768
>
>
--
--
Scott England-Sullivan
----------------------------------
FuseSource
Web: http://www.fusesource.com
Blog: http://sully6768.blogspot.com
Twitter: sully6768
