You can refer to the following url as well.
In one word it says that there is no mechanism or guarantee to control the
load order of WAR for TOMCAT.
http://efreedom.com/Question/1-6698646/Way-Enforce-Deployment-Order-Tomcat6
At 2011-12-02 17:24:10,"Torsten Mielke" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>At first I t
Thank for your response.
I see my questions are not obvious :)
And indeed after some few days spent to solve these problems i think i will
have to use a standalone broker .
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Multiple-war-in-Tomcat-7-using-a-shared-embedded-
thanks for closing the loop on this one.
Yep, the destination limits have a parent/child relationship with system usage;
sort of pocket money like, all of the money comes from the parent
income so it is reduced!
If hard limits are in place and the expect to be met, then share the
system usage amo
Thanks all that's exactly the fix for me.
It makes sense now that I've read
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQCPP-369
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQCPP-369 . I've tested it on Fedora
16 x86_64 and i686 and it works on both platforms.
Back in my coding days I would have see
Hi,
At first I thought you could simply use the vm transport as the first client to
use it would boot an embedded broker. But then the brokers life time depends on
that war. Also, I presume this could result in class loading issues at runtime?
The better approach seems to be deploying the brok
> Now to my question: How can I access/configure the HttpClient sender that
> ActiveMQ uses for the HttpTransport?
I am not sure but this may not be possible right now. The HTTP transport
reference on ActiveMQ does not seem to expose much additional configuration.
Although the class HttpClientTr
