jstrachan wrote:
>
> On 6 October 2010 13:02, Olivier.Roger <olivier.ro...@bsb.com> wrote:
>> Hello Camel!
>>
>> I was wondering how routes could be extensible.
>>
>> I thougth I could use the following idea to do it but I appears to be
>> otherwise:
>>
>> The route I created is pretty simple: It picks up message from A,
>> transform
>> it then send it to B.
>> I would like to make it extensible so that another route could be hooked
>> into it.
>>
>> My idea was to divide the route into 2 routes:
>>
>> 1) A -> transform -> properties:hook-in
>> 2) properties:hook-out -> B
>>
>> By default hook-in and hook-out would use the same direct:hook endpoint
>> or
>> anything like that.
>>
>> If another route transporting messages from C to D needs to be added, the
>> properties can be changed to
>> - hook-in=C
>> - hook-out=D
>> That way the route would be complete.
>
>
> This sounds a bit like using a class with fields for the endpoints?
>
> class MyRoute extends RouteBuilder {
> public String hookIn = "direct://in";
> public String hookOut = "direct://out";
>
> protected void configure() {
> from("activemq:A").to(hookIn);
> from(hookOut).to("activemq:B");
> }
>
> then you just configure the MyRoute instance with specific values of
> hookIn/hookOut?
>
>
I was thinking I could use a properties file and using the Config Admin
service from SMX I could change the values at runtime.
jstrachan wrote:
>
> Another option is to introduce a special kind of endpoint which
> basically is just a proxy which resolves itself at runtime using some
> mechanism; which you can then modify at runtime or use some registry
> or Map to decide which names map to what physical endpoints. Kinda
> like the Control Bus pattern
>
> http://www.enterpriseintegrationpatterns.com/ControlBus.html
>
>
>
I just read the page from the book again and it seems to be a better way
indeed, even if it might a bit overkill in this situation.
Is there already a component in Camel that could provides such
functionalities ? I haven't seen anything like that since now.
jstrachan wrote:
>
>
>> However, since I deploy the route as separate osgi bundles (one with
>> A->B,
>> another with C->D), I get the following error
>>
>> CamelExchangeException: No consumers available on endpoint:
>> Endpoint[direct://hook-in]
>>
>> Another complication is that I would like the route to stay transactional
>> and only have A and B persisted on my JMS broker.
>>
>> Is that possible ?
>
> You do realise that having a direct: or vm: endpoint in between two
> JMS endpoints basically breaks all reliability you have; your route
> may be transactional but if the JVM processing the route goes down you
> stand to lose possibly many messages which were sat in memory on the
> direct/vm buffer.
>
> Why do you explicitly not want to add a persistence step? Might it be
> better to miss out the C and D steps, and just do one transaction from
> A to B (with whatever other things you want) then you get reliability,
> transactions and persistence?
>
>
>
The idea was to provide default routes that could be extended by other teams
for specific (client) needs.
Those routes would just have to start from hook-in and end at hook-out which
is really easy. And configuration is quite simple to start using that new
route. (simply match default.hook-in to specific.hook-in and same for out).
--
View this message in context:
http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Hookpoint-Extensible-routes-tp3201249p3204772.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
