On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Ade <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've never been a fan of Java serialization; however, I've been working with > a Camel user who wants to be able to serialize an exchange and place the > whole thing on a JMS queue. The motivation is that they want to set the > exchange up to be subsequently persisted in a database for audit purposes, > but they want to separate the writing to a queue (relatively fast and > asynchronous) from the act of persisting to a database. > > In order to achieve this, they've had to create their own serializable > versions of Exchange, Header, Property, Message and Attachments. This works, > but it's painful to have to write and maintain that extra code. > > So. Just curious: would it be possible to modify the Camel core API and make > Exchanges etc. serializable? Interested to hear people's thoughts on this.
I dont think we should do this. We can not assume the data it contains can be serialized. There is a DefaultExchangeHolder class which you can use to serialize and Exchange. It has the features to only transfer the objects which can be serialized. Its used by other components which supports the transferExchange options such as camel-jms, camel-mina, camel-netty, camel-hawtdb etc. > -- > View this message in context: > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Should-we-could-we-make-Exchanges-serializable-tp3204367p3204367.html > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- Claus Ibsen Apache Camel Committer Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/ Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
