To clarify, I'm using ServiceMix 4.3
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:01 AM, janne postilista <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm implementing a simple integration solution and wondering about the > best design. > > Solution reads from JMS queue queue-A and writes to queue-B. In > between the message goes through two transformations: first from > queue-A format to standardized format, then from standardized format > to queue-B format. > > To enable easy changing of queue-A format and queue-B format, I'm > implementing this as 3 OSGi bundles: > > 1. main bundle > - reads from queue-A > - writes to transformation1-in > - reads from transformation1-out > - writes to transformation2-in > - reads from transformation2-out > - writes to queue-B > 2. transformation1 > - reads from transformation1-in > - does transformation from queue-A format to standardized > - writes to transformation1-out > 3. transformation2 > - reads from transformation2-in > - does transformation from standardized formation to queue-B format > - writes to transformation2-out > > There's JMS queues (for example) between each step to make processing > reliable, so that if servicemix/camel crashes while doing > transformation1 for example, message does not get lost. > > - I believe this could be implemented as camel-only solution - each > bundle is a separate camel route and does not involve other servicemix > components (such as NMR) at all > - I guess other option would be to involve servicemix NMR (how would I > do it with these 3 bundles?) - would this have some benefits over > camel-only solution? Would it simplify implementing reliability, for > example (would I still need to use explicitly each intermediate queue, > eg. transformation1-out)? >
