Re: [servicemix-dev] Regarding NMR-Flow types

[Peter Smith]

Thankyou very much for your answer. Peter. Rob Davies wrote: The one flow-type per container was an ease of implementation thing  originally - but the intention from the start was to make the flow's  distributed, and that is what we have done (the hard part first).  This makes it more difficult to implement a flow strategy per  component/or endpoint, because the logic is more complex. We've also  optimized behavior of some of the flow types recently to route  differently based on the direction the MessageExchange is flowing -  which adds to the complexity. We will provide a flow type per Component  in the future - but that  will only be applicable for in-container delivery. cheers, Rob At a later stage On 15 Nov 2005, at 00:31, Peter Smith wrote: I raised a JIRA issue about SM-163 about different NMR-Flow types  within a single ServiceMix container instance. But my manager is asking me for more details about the current  architecture that I am unable to answer :-( His question to me is "what is the BACKGROUND of the one-flow-per  container architecture? eg WHY did they choose this strategy?" I really have no idea - I figured maybe there is no reason other  than it was just the easiest/quickest thing to do for the 1st  release.... Anyway I said at least I would pass his question to the dev list. So if anybody knows the history of the one-flow-type-per-container  architecture or some sort of justification for it being this way  can you please let me know. Thanks Peter. -- Peter Smith Fujitsu Australia Software Technology 14 Rodborough Road, Frenchs Forest NSW 2086 T: +61 2 9452 9130, F: +61 2 9975 2899 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.fastware.com