I think it could be more easy to be done by using the caching for the last update, then store the result into some place. I don't think the delayer is good solution if you have lots values need to be checked.
-- Willem Jiang Red Hat, Inc. FuseSource is now part of Red Hat Web: http://www.fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (http://willemjiang.blogspot.com/) (English) http://jnn.iteye.com (http://jnn.javaeye.com/) (Chinese) Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > You might be better off using Redis or another technology rather than > a message broker. > Your use case doesn't fit with the concept of messaging, lightweight > DB storage is better suited. While you can find ways to implement it > on AMQ, the solution will be suboptimal. > We offer a camel-redis component as of Camel 2.11. You can use it with > camel-jms to bridge JMS clients with Redis, if need be. > > Regards, > Raúl. > Apache Camel Committer > > On 25 Feb 2013, at 16:01, Paul Gale <paul.n.g...@gmail.com > (mailto:paul.n.g...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > FYI: I am using ActiveMQ 5.8 with Camel 2.10.3. > > > > Is it possible to implement 'last value queue' type semantics using Camel? > > As far as I know ActiveMQ does not natively support 'last value queues' > > therefore I am left trying to implement this via Camel. > > > > The particular scenario I am looking to implement is as follows: using > > Camel's Delayer EIP messages that match a certain criteria will be delayed > > by 24 hours, say, before being delivered. If an update to a message already > > held by the Delayer arrives it must over write the previously seen version > > of the same message. For example, if ten updates to the same message arrive > > during the delay period then only the tenth update is dispatched to the > > consumer. > > > > This is essentially the inverse of the IdempotentConsumer EIP which > > dispatches the first (as opposed to the last) version of a message an then > > filters out subsequent duplicates. > > > > Thanks, > > Paul >
