JMS Bridge vs Camel

[pminearo <pe...@skycreek.com>]

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.

Re: JMS Bridge vs Camel

[Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

If you don’t want to touch the message body, using the JMS Bridge should be fine.
If you want to route the message based on the message content or route the message with other transport protocol, using Apache Camel is a better choice.


--  
Willem Jiang

Red Hat, Inc.
Web: http://www.redhat.com
Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English)
http://jnn.iteye.com (Chinese)
Twitter: willemjiang  
Weibo: 姜宁willem



On July 26, 2014 at 9:44:59 AM, pminearo (peter_minearo@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
>  
>  
> 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.
>  

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.