Yes it does. Thanks for all this information.
Ashwin Karpe wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure I understand the question.
>
> A Camel route is made up of 2 or more endpoints which in its most basic
> form looks like this,
> from("URI in Message Consumer Role").
> to("URI in Message Producer role")
>
> The Consumer URI could be a web service, an http listener or a JMS Queue
> listener. On the other hand the Producer URI could be a web service client
> or http client or a JMS Queue producer.
>
> Obviously if the consumer URI needs to be a web service, you would use the
> CXF component which would then require you to provide either WSDL or
> annotated code.
>
> Hope this clarifies things.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ashwin...
>
>
> AnuragS wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Ashwin,
>>
>> I'm not anticipating the solution will require to work on different
>> technology stacks as the "Producer" and "Consumer" are internal to the
>> System.
>> However, I may have to expose the consume side of the functionality as a
>> Web Service later. Do you think I'll be able to leverage anything from
>> Camel if that's the case in future.
>>
>> -Anurag
>>
>>
>>
>> Ashwin Karpe wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Camel is primarily a router surrounded by other capabilities
>>> (processors, interceptors etc). Camel mediates between 2 or more
>>> technology endpoints and applies rules, transforms, integration patterns
>>> along the way.
>>>
>>> Asynchronous behavior primarily involves setting up listeners backed by
>>> an eventing framework. Camel offers this core capability and supports it
>>> over several protocols, transports.
>>>
>>> If your solution is an all JMS solution (i.e a single protocol centric
>>> asynchronous application) a MOM would do the job just fine. However you
>>> would need to write the plumbing code yourself and embed it in your
>>> application.
>>>
>>> If however your solution needs to do this over several protocols,
>>> transports and technology stacks in a simple manner using DSL or Spring
>>> DSL (with no need to worry about the plumbing code) then Camel is a good
>>> choice.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Ashwin...
>>>
>>>
>>> AnuragS wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Does it make sense to use Apache Camel for making asynchronous calls?
>>>> Or the old fashioned MoM is good enough.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-Apache-Camel-Asynchronously-tp22111353p22212493.html
Sent from the Camel - Users (activemq) mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
