Tung,

When using JMS with an InOut pattern, camel-jms will take care of the sending 
the reply using JMSReplyTo.
If you send your response explicitly to a given queue at the end of your route, 
lets call it "queueXYZ", camel-jms will actually wait for a reply from queueXYZ 
so that it can send the final response to your reply queue!

In your case, it never got a response back from jms.queue.test.reply so the 
timeout expired! ;)
As for the 2nd message, I am not sure if it was an exception message or not.

Cheers,
Mathieu




----------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:48:02 +0200
> Subject: Re: JMS request-reply and transactions
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Mathieu Lalonde <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Try removing the <to uri="{{jms.queue.test.reply}}" /> from your route.
> > Normally, for InOut, you should not send the response back explicitly.
> > Camel takes care of that for you. :)
> >
>
> This solved my problem, thanks Mathieu!
>
> I assume that the fixed echo route, detects the JMSReplyTo header in the
> message and automatically forwards the result of the route to that reply
> destination.
>
> This is some kind of test setup, the final echo implementation would not be
> using Camel, but written in some external mainframe application. I guess
> that program needs to behave accordingly and put the reply in the correct
> destination.
>
> But I don't understand what went wrong in the previous setup, where I send
> the reply explicitly the the reply destination. The initial request route
> sees an valid response, so I assume the echo route is finished and has
> committed the response.
>
> Why does the request route still logging some request timeout after a
> "successful" receive? And secondly, why do I find a reply message in queue
> after the timeout? Is it because the echo route posts TWO (!) messages?
>
> Anyway, my initial problem is solved, and having a better understanding of
> Camel JMS would only be a bonus .. :-)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Tung
                                          

Reply via email to