This sounds fair. Is there any official camel stand on this? Thanks. Ashwin Karpe wrote: > > Hi, > > Interesting point. What is probably confusing in the picture is that the > JMS Broker is not shown and its location is unclear. > > If there are 2 networked broker instances on each box with each having its > own persistent store then the figure is fine. Also if there was DB > replication involved then it may be good. If not, then the figure may not > be quite accurate. > > The way to read this is to look at the expressed intent in the figure > rather to delivery mechanics. In that the picture is fine. > > This figure come out of the EIP patterns book which simply expresses the > idea of delivery level guarantees without talking about concrete > technology implementations (JMS) for which there may be many possible > implementations styles and techniques employed by different JMS > implementations. > > Cheers, > > Ashwin... > > > Raster3 wrote: >> >> >> This is regrading this http://camel.apache.org/guaranteed-delivery.html >> >> I would to restrict this discussion to JMS. >> I have used webloic JMS. I understand guranteed delivery is part of JMS >> specs and what this means is that the message will be stored by the JMS >> provider till its delievered to the intended recepient / subscriber. >> >> This is counter to the image shown in the image associated with the url >> where it appears that the message is stored on two sides- sender and >> reciever. When using JMS would you not wish the message to be stored just >> by the JMS provider? >> >> Am I missing something? >> > >
-- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Guranteed-Delivery-tp27399518p27402491.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
