Sorry for cluttering up the list with thank yous, but this is very helpful. Thank you!
-----Original Message----- From: Claus Ibsen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 1:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: seda concurrency when sending messages to another route Hi No the direct component does not use the MEP. It just continues routing the message. And when its done, it returns back to the route that called it. eg from A -> to B -> to direct C -> to D from direct C -> to E -> to F then when its done at F, then it continues in the 1st route, and goes to D. And then its done at D, there is no more routes, and the consumer at A can send back a reply to whoever called it (if its InOut) or just terminate if its InOnly mode. On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Robert Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Claus! > > Is this because it is (as described in the docs) a 'synchronous call to > another endpoint'? Does the exchange pattern used in the seda route > influence this at all? If it's InOut, does the Out come from the referenced > direct route? > > Sorry for all the questions! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Claus Ibsen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 2:18 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: seda concurrency when sending messages to another route > > Hi > > Yes you can break up big routes into multiple routes, and "link" them > together using direct endpoints. > And yes the seda consumer will not pickup a new message while you call other > routes using direct. > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Robert Rich <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> My understanding is that the seda queue is single-threaded by default, >> primarily by virtue of 'concurrentConsumers' defaulting to '1'. To me this >> means that the route will not pull another message off of the queue until >> the last one has completed processing. This is my desired behavior. >> >> However, the route is getting quite long, and I'm wondering if it's possible >> to pass the message to another route while ensuring that the seda consumer >> will not pull another message off of the queue until that 'invoked' route >> has completed. I'm assuming this would be done via 'direct', possibly with >> a specific exchange pattern applied to one or both routes? >> >> In the case I have in mind, the second/invoked route would end the >> processing chain, but is it possible to have such a pattern in the middle of >> a route as well, such that the message is passed to a route and the output >> of that route inserted back into the processing chain of the first route, >> almost like a subroutine? It seems like the enricher pattern could be >> (ab)used this way, but it doesn't seem like that is the intent. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Bob >> >> >> -- >> Robert Rich >> CTO/VP >> Global Security Technologies, Inc. >> Direct: (614) 291-3456 >> Fax: (614) 356-8078 >> www.gsti.net >> > > > > -- > Claus Ibsen > ----------------- > Red Hat, Inc. > Email: [email protected] > Twitter: davsclaus > Blog: http://davsclaus.com > Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen > hawtio: http://hawt.io/ > fabric8: http://fabric8.io/ -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- Red Hat, Inc. Email: [email protected] Twitter: davsclaus Blog: http://davsclaus.com Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen hawtio: http://hawt.io/ fabric8: http://fabric8.io/
