[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-5464?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13445928#comment-13445928
]
James Carman edited comment on CAMEL-5464 at 9/1/12 3:30 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, cool! Sorry about the regression. I was (and still am) having a
terrible time getting the build to run locally on my machine. I'll keep
tinkering. This is my first Mac laptop, so getting used to Java development on
here is somewhat of a chore. Perhaps I'll just switch to a VM or something
Are we going to update the fix versions/status?
was (Author: jwcarman):
Okay, cool! Sorry about the regression. I was (and still am) having a
terrible time getting the build to run locally on my machine. I'll keep
tinkering. This is my first Mac laptop, so getting used to Java development on
here is somewhat of a chore. Perhaps I'll just switch to a VM or something
> camel-jms consumer doesn't send back a reply in all cases
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CAMEL-5464
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-5464
> Project: Camel
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: camel-activemq, camel-jms
> Affects Versions: 2.8.6, 2.9.2, 2.10.0
> Reporter: Raul Kripalani
> Assignee: Willem Jiang
> Attachments: CAMEL-5464.patch
>
>
> In a very simple route consuming from a Camel JMS endpoint receiving InOut
> exchanges (i.e. JMSReplyTo header present), the endpoint will not send back
> replies.
> This happens because Camel JMS only returns a reply if the OUT message is
> set. But if the route looks like: consumer => processor, and Camel doesn't
> find the need to "weave in" an implicit Pipeline processor, no one will
> implicitly take care of mapping the IN message to an OUT message (unless the
> user knows about these internal aspects - but we shouldn't expect them too).
> As a result, these routes DON'T WORK...
> {code}
> <route>
> <from uri="timer:foo?fixedRate=true&period=10000" />
> <setBody><constant>Hello Raul</constant></setBody>
> <to uri="log:SendingRequest?showAll=true" />
> <inOut uri="activemq:queue:test1?requestTimeout=1000" />
> <to uri="log:ReceivedReply?showAll=true" />
> </route>
>
> <route>
> <from uri="activemq:queue:test1" />
> <to uri="log:ReceivedRequest?showAll=true" />
> </route>
> {code}
> ... but just by adding an additional log endpoint to the second route (or any
> other thing, for that matter), it starts to work because Camel weaves in the
> Pipeline processor.
> Other workarounds that work:
> * -explicitly wrapping the log endpoint in a <pipeline> DSL-
> * <setBody><simple>${in.body}</simple></setBody>
> Or simply introducing anything that will force Camel to insert a Pipeline
> processor.
> IMHO, there are two solutions to avoid this issue:
> # Always weave in a Pipeline processor (adds overhead in simple routes and
> may cause regressions)
> # Adapt EndpointMessageListener to pick the IN message when the exchange is
> out capable and expectation of a reply exists
> I'm happy to work on a patch for Camel 2.10.1.
> *EDIT:* Just wrapping the single endpoint in <pipeline /> doesn't function as
> a workaround.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
