Hi

You can try to patch the code and change that selector to use your custom
header name, and see how that goes.
Then maybe we can make this configurable in a future Camel release.


On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 12:11 PM Marcin W. <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have stumbled upon the following problem. Our legacy platform uses
> JMS with Artemis server for request-reply scenarios. However, it uses
> custom headers instead of "JMSMessageID" and "JMSCorrelationId" for
> request-reply correlation. Request includes "msgId" header that is
> being copied to "corrId" header of the response message by the service
> provider. Service client wait for the reply with selector
> "corrId=<msgId>".
>
> I have found two properties on JMS Component that looked promising:
>
> 1. correlationProperty = corrId
> 2. replyToDestinationSelectorName = corrId
>
> But:
>
> 1. Does not change the header's name used by selector, only uses the
> value of the specified header (keeps listening with selector
> "JMSCorrelationID=<corrId-from-request>")
> 2. Listens on correct header but with it's value from request:
> "corrId=<corrId-from-request-but-regenerated>" which would be ok but
> it also overwrites the value of "corrId" you set before sending the
> message (I set "msgId" to the same value as "corrId" because as I
> mentioned the providing service copies the value of "msgId" to
> "corrId")
>
> I found the following code responsible for this behaviour:
>
> 1. org.apache.camel.component.jms.reply.MessageSelectorCreator.get()
> where "JMSCorrelationId" is hardcoded.
> 2.
> org.apache.camel.component.jms.reply.QueueReplyManager.createDefaultListenerContainer()
> where replyToSelectorValue is always generated as new.
>
> I found solution that works by using to() with "InOnly" and
> pollEnrich() with custom selector, but it is not the best solution I
> think (pollEnrich creates new consumer each time it receives and I
> think sometime it happens too late and the response that go to the
> response topic (address in Artemis nomenclature) cannot be routed
> because customer queue is not created yet and therefore message is
> discarded) .
>
> Is there another solution that could work in my scenario? Using
> synchronous to() would be the best and cleanest.
>
> Kind regards,
> Marcin Wieckowski.
>


-- 
Claus Ibsen

Reply via email to