Re: JMS Bridge vs Camel

[Matthew Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>]

You have better management and control (multi-threading, throttling, logging, etc) over using a Camel route vs ActiveMQ’s JMS bridge. Camel is very lightweight, so I wouldn’t expect it to have any measurable performance impact in real world scenarios.

On Jul 25, 2014, at 8:44 PM, pminearo <pe...@skycreek.com> wrote:

> I have a JMS Bridge set up between to ActiveMQ (5.10) Queues.  We are running
> into an issue with the Bridge dropping the connections.  I have been digging
> around to find a fix, and I keep running into use Camel Routes.  
> 
> Besides the 3 reasons listed here: 
> http://activemq.apache.org/jms-to-jms-bridge.html
> <http://activemq.apache.org/jms-to-jms-bridge.html>  
> 
> Why does everyone just assume the fix is "Use Camel Routes"?  Is the JMS
> Bridge functionality no longer supported?  Are there too many problems with
> it?  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/JMS-Bridge-vs-Camel-tp4683688.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.