For my unique use case, I absolutely need to have two separate endpoint addresses. Given that, is there an efficient mechanism to forward the message from one endpoint to the other that bypasses the store?
- Ron Gert Vanthienen wrote: > > Ron, > > Instead of putting the wiretap in between, couldn't you have your > consumer endpoint specify the producer endpoint as a target directly? > If the only purpose it to expose an existing service to the rest of the > world using a binding component, you even don't have to invent a new > name for it: the BC's consumer endpoint will be an external endpoint and > can have the same name as an already existing internal endpoint. > > Gert > > > rgavlin wrote: >> 1. In ServiceMix, I have a scenario in which I need to simply forward a >> message from one endpoint to another. I am accomplishing this today using >> a >> servicemix-eip wire-tap with no listeners configured. However, this >> appears >> to incur the overhead of a message exchange store operation which I would >> like to avoid. Is there a better way to forward a message without the >> overhead of a Store? >> >> 2. I think what I would really like is a generic, low-overhead "proxy" >> component that essentially allows me to assign an additional "alias" >> endpoint address to an existing endpoint. Based on >> http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-369, it appears something >> similar to this was implemented specifically for the servicemix-http and >> servicemix-jms components. However, I am looking for a generic >> "alias/proxy" >> capability that works for all endpoints. >> >> Any feedback you can provide regarding these two issues is appreciated. >> >> - Ron >> > > > > ----- > --- > Gert Vanthienen > http://www.anova.be > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Low-overhead-Message-forwarding-strategy-tp16348698s12049p16361064.html Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
