Hi Robert, I 100% agree with you. But I think thats something we could take care of once the camel routing stuff is in place..
Bye, Norman 2010/2/18 Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]>: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Mario Zsilak <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I just took a glance at camel.apache.org but I spotted the following >> statement: >> >> <!-- start --> >> Apache Camel can be used as a routing and mediation engine for the following >> projects: >> >> * ... >> * Apache ActiveMQ which is the most popular and powerful open source >> message broker >> * ... >> <!-- end --> >> >> >> I guess that means that other message brokers (including commercial ones) >> are not supported within Apache Camel? >> In that case I would be happy to see some kind of abstraction layer so that >> others (like me) can implement their own stuff ... >> >> Apart from my requirements I guess most people don't need these (very nice) >> features at all. >> However if there is a performance gain, especially when using only 1 >> server/james-instance, we should go for it. > > IIRC we've discuss this before and the consensus was that an API would > be the right way to go > > +1 with a few comments > > might need to think a little about big emails. might be better just to > send the meta-data around keeping a reference to a data store. this > would fit in with ideas about streaming bodies more directly into > storage. > > - robert > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
