Serializable objects will be sent using a JMS ObjectMessage, not dropped on the floor. No need for JSON serialization. That doesn't mean I don't agree with you that an alternate serialized form should be used (see previous comments).
On Friday, October 4, 2013, kraythe . wrote: > You do know that JMS only accepts certain types right? Anything it doesn't > understand, like your POJO, will get dropped on the floor. If you serialize > your object to JSON before writing to the queue and then back from JSON > when reading, it should work fine. > > *Robert Simmons Jr. MSc. - Lead Java Architect @ EA* > *Author of: Hardcore Java (2003) and Maintainable Java (2012)* > *LinkedIn: **http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-simmons/40/852/a39* > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:59 PM, James Carman > <[email protected]<javascript:;> > >wrote: > > > Are you sure? I thought "bean" was only a producer (or processor). > > Anyway, the use case seems kind of silly and probably will lead to > > mysterious things going on (like jms messages being stolen ;) > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Christian Müller > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Maybe > > > from > > > bean > > > > > > is a valid route... > > > > > > Best, > > > Christian > > > Am 03.10.2013 17:46 schrieb "James Carman" <[email protected] > >: > > > > > >> That second route with no "to" is "stealing" your messages, I'd guess. > > >> I am actually surprised you're able to create a route with no "to." > > >> I'm curious to play with that phenomenon in a test case. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Andreas Gies < > [email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > Hi, > > >> > > > >> > it might be me, but I think your 2nd route is missing a to-element. > > >> > You need to do something with message like drop it to a file or at > > least > > >> log > > >> > it. > > >> > > > >> > Otherwise, like others have pointed out, using beans as payload is > bad > > >> > practice > > >> > in integration applications. However, you seem to be happy with that > > ... > > >> > > > >> > Best regards > > >> > Andreas > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On 09/30/2013 12:44 PM, kosalads wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> I have done a small app which connect to the camel war and do the > > >> >> processing > > >> >> and set to another queue. However, when I process sample xml files > it > > >> does > > >> >> goes to the relevant queues and process. Unfortunately, when I use > > Bean > > >> >> Object via camel It doesnt get updated in the 2nd queue. > > >> >> > > >> >> If I explain bit more , This is how I have configured in the > > application > > >> >> context which is in the camel war deployed in Jetty server. > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> <camelContext xmlns="http://camel.apache.org/schema/spring";> > > >> >> <route> > > >> >> <from uri="activemq:inQ" /> > > >> >> <to uri="activemq:outQ" /> > > >> >> </route> > > >> >> </camelContext> > > >> >> > > >> >> <bean id="activemq" > > >> >> class="org.apache.activemq.camel.component.ActiveMQComponent"> > > >> >> <property name="brokerURL" value="tcp://localhost:61616" > /> > > >> >> </bean> > > >> >> > > >> >> <camelContext xmlns=" > http://camel.apache.org/schema/spring > > "> > > >> >> <route> > > >> >> <from uri="activemq:outQ" /> > > >> >> </route> > > >> >> </camelContext> > > >> >> > > >> >> I have crated three applications. > > >> >> > > >> >> 1. Standalone application which connect to the camel war and send > the > > >> Pojo > > >> >> Class to the Queue (inQ). > > >> >> 2. Camel war application which has above configuration. So when I > > pass > > >> the > > >> >> Be
