What's the difference between using an optimized in-vm JMS endpoint and a NMR endpoint, apart from the required infrastructure (having a JMS factory on one side and the NMR bundles on the other) ?
Do they use different thread-management strategies, or do they have limitations? I don't want to start a troll here, just I want to understand the difference between them. I'm used to working with JMS and JBI but I don't clearly see where the NMR stands. Can I pass objects with the NMR (which for me is one of the big feature-and-limitation-at-the-same-time of JBI) ? James.Strachan wrote: > > 2009/12/22 Adrian Trenaman <[email protected]>: >> Might be a bit tricky: maybe you could declare the context in one bundle, >> register it as an osgi service, and then pull it in to the routes in your >> other bundles. >> >> Another approach I've used in the past is to provide an osgi service for >> each route, which uses the producerTemplate to kick off thje route when >> another bundle invokes on the service. >> >> Alternatively, just use JMS with optimized vm transport to communicate in >> between the bunldles. > > Agreed. Or use the NMR or JBI endpoints from ServiceMix whose main > purpose is to communicate messages across class loaders > > -- > James > ------- > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ > > Open Source Integration > http://fusesource.com/ > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Sharing-a-CamelContext-across-several-bundles-tp26885528p26886199.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
