Small typo in the post.
I am able to send messages over a http connection but not able to receive
messages over http connection.
krv wrote:
>
> I am trying to use http transportConnector to send and receive messages. I
> am able to receive messages over a http connection but not able to receive
I am trying to use http transportConnector to send and receive messages. I am
able to receive messages over a http connection but not able to receive
messages over http connection.
I am getting the following warning in the ActiveMQ console:
WARN ManagedTransportConnection - Failed to regist
On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:25 PM, tpounds wrote:
I found the root cause for this error...I found it burried in
another thread
and seems to be the result of all the brokers having the same
default name
set to "localhost".
see:
http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?
post=4426623&framed=y&s
The clients currently find our brokers by using the multicast://default
discovery, however, I am tasked to log what servers are used to perform the
messaging, once a connection is made. When I retrieve the brokerURL on the
session, it is always multicast://default. There does not seem to be any
m
I found the root cause for this error...I found it burried in another thread
and seems to be the result of all the brokers having the same default name
set to "localhost".
see:
http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=4426623&framed=y&skin=2354
It may be beneficial to generate unique broker
It actually does happen for me in 4.1. I am unable. Strange thing. Sounds
kinda like a bug.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Negative-queue-size-with-trunk-tf3293548s2354.html#a13478238
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I figured it out. When I reworked the example, I still had the "SHUTDOWN"
logic in it from the example. Doh!
C55427 wrote:
>
> I can ask the question very succinctly: I want my consumers to live
> forever and not care about the comings and goings of producers. When I
> use the example pro
I'm seeing a weird problem when using static network connectors in the latest
5.0 snapshots. If i specify the following in my activemq.xml. The following
happens when my local broker is running activemq 5.0 and the upstream
servers are using 4.1.1 or 5.0-SNAPSHOT. I also see the issue when using
Hi,
one question about the message expiration in combination with topics.
I know how to configure the time-to-live.
A message first resides inside the journal. After the checkpointing(how to
configure checkpointing??), it is persisted in a database (if JDBC is
configured).
If the time-to-live is
Yup, the failover:// scheme is used for clients. You may want to consider
setting 'randomize' to false because you always want your clients to try and
connect to the master first. For example,
failover:(tcp://masterhost:61616,tcp://slavehost:61616)?randomize=false
The static:// scheme for the br
Hi,
can anybody tell me how to configure the checkpoint interval?
I was searching the website and the forum and I found nothing.
Is it somewhere in the API?
Regards,
Matthias
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/configure-checkpoint-interval--tf4713523s2354.html#a13473498
Sent
Hi,
I wanted to test out the destination policies. I have a fast producer ->
slow consumer set up here with non-durable topics. I set the constant
pending message limit to 10 with prefetch of 1000, but my pendingqueuesize
goes as high as 24848. I believe this is because of the flow control. So ca
Hi all,
I am trying to set up a simple network of two logical brokers, say A and
B, in which each logical broker is a (JDBC) master/slave pair, say A1 &
A2 and B1 & B2. I need to send messages only from A to B (and not B to
A): producers are connected to A and consumers are connected to B. I
want
Hi guys,
i want to write an web application where users can send / receive messages.
e.g. send: user log in --> send message --> user xxx logged in
receive: another user gets the message --> user xxx logged in
I think AMQ / ajax is the perfect solution for this.
The problem is that i have
I think when I added: wireFormat.maxInactivityDuration=0 to the url my
durable subscribers are always stuck in ActiveMQ (I think they never get
disconnected even though my client has died). When I try to restart the
durable subscriber it always fails. When I restart the durable consumer I
always g
I believe we have resolved our problems. Clock synchronization issues across
the network was causing the clients to believe that the messages were
expired.
colomb wrote:
>
> bump
>
> Further info: All this is running in Java and the client machines are
> windows xp machines. Any suggestions
James.Strachan wrote:
>
>
> On the broker side, the ports are well defined in the activemq.xml
> (the elements) - plus JMX often creates an RMI
> port.
>
>
What about the multicast discovery port for example?
It seems to default to 6155, but I did not find it documented anywhere nor
did I f
Hi,
There are options in ActiveMQ for persistence, either you can use
jdbcJournal or pure Jdbc DB persistence.
In either case message will be persisted into storage, incase of any
crash/disaster to broker. Whenever the broker is back and up and it has
active consumer then broker will fetch messag
18 matches
Mail list logo