up Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 à 16:08, Damien Nicolas <dmn.nico...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Hmmm actually, if I add a queue, it just move the problem. Any idea? > > Le ven. 26 juil. 2019 à 14:46, Damien Nicolas <dmn.nico...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >> Hello, >> I have multiple sequential queues in InOut pattern, each queue leads to >> one processor. >> If a processor takes too much time for a treatment, I would like that the >> request-reply detects a timeout and send a timeout exception. >> The timeout with "*CamelJmsRequestTimeout*" works but only for the first >> queue. >> >> Example: >> If I have this: >> >> q1 -> p1 -> q2 -> p2 -> q3 -> p3 >> >> q1 *CamelJmsRequestTimeout *is for example 15". If each processor take >> 6", I will have a timeout at p3. >> I would like to have a reply to q1 after p1 and not after p3. And being >> able to modulate the timeout after each processing. >> >> This is an example code: >> >> from("jms:queue:q1") >> .setExchangePattern(ExchangePattern.InOut) >> .setHeader("CamelJmsRequestTimeout", constant("15000")) >> .process("p1") >> .to("jms:queue:q2"); >> >> from("jms:queue:q2") >> .setExchangePattern(ExchangePattern.InOut) >> .setHeader("CamelJmsRequestTimeout", constant("5000")) >> .process("p2") >> .to("jms:queue:q3"); >> >> from("jms:queue:q3") >> .setExchangePattern(ExchangePattern.InOut) >> .setHeader("CamelJmsRequestTimeout", constant("5000")) >> .process("p3"); >> >> I tried to double the concurrentConsumers (so from 1 to 2) on each >> procuder for the reply on the temp queue, but I still have this problem. >> >> Is my design possible? If yes, which option should I use? >> >> Thanks >> > > > -- > Damien NICOLAS > -- Damien NICOLAS