+1 fwiw, Hadrian On Oct 8, 2010, at 7:05 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
> 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
