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 <peter_mine...@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.
