In theory, the useKeepAlive=true TcpTransport option (enabled by default,
as described in the link I referenced earlier) should detect dead
connections, but earlier this year another user saw a situation where one
side didn't detect a network cable pull even though the useKeepAlive option
was enabl
The receiver is getting a message, although it comes up empty. Would anyone
possibly know what could be causing this?
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Apollo-AMQP-Message-Size-Limit-tp4697469p4697592.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list ar
I'm glad that helped. At a quick glance your new code looks pretty good.
The important thing was being able to only send the message to the "next"
broker so that your broker filter doesn't get called in an infinite loop
and your new code does this. Your new code is also much more efficient
than b
Hello,
I am working on integrating an AMQP 1.0 client with the Apache Apollo
server. I am able to send and receive messages up to a certain size (around
16k). After that, the contents of the message will come up as null on the
receiving end. I was able to send/receive these messages with another A
Thanks Tim for your reply.
Yes, the issue seems to be TCP connections seem to be in bad state - we are
not sure what is causing this behavior but guessing it could be related to
firewall idle session timeout (or possibly some other firewall rule?) which
is dropping the TCP connection on the clien
Thank you very much christopher.l.shannon.
Your reply helped me to solve the problem.
This is the new code (the modifications are in bold) for any one who may be
interested. Your critics are welcomed of course.
Regards,
public class MyBroker extends BrokerFilter {
public MyBroker(Broker ne
I think the only way you are going to be able to achieve what you want is
by doing what Tim mentionedusing a transaction where you
commit/rollback after each message. Since processing a message could take
a while, you could increase the number of consumers to increase throughput.
Take a look
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Kevin Burton wrote:
> >
> > I can see two potential problems that your description didn't draw a line
> > between:
> >
> >1. With a large prefetch buffer, it's possible to have one thread
> have a
> >large number of prefetched tasks and another have none, e
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 07:29:16 -0600, Tim Bain
wrote:
>So why can't you use transactions? Won't you get what you want if you
>commit the transaction after every successful message and
>rollback()/close() and then reconnect after every failed one?
No. It may take some time to process a message so
Can you put a breakpoint on the call to socket.close() in
TcpTransport.doStop() (
http://grepcode.com/file/repo1.maven.org/maven2/org.apache.activemq/activemq-client/5.11.1/org/apache/activemq/transport/tcp/TcpTransport.java#TcpTransport.doStop%28org.apache.activemq.util.ServiceStopper%29)
and see
So why can't you use transactions? Won't you get what you want if you
commit the transaction after every successful message and
rollback()/close() and then reconnect after every failed one?
Also is the app server going to fail to respond to *certain* messages, or
is it going to fail to respond to
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Kevin Burton wrote:
> > Advisories break when using the memory store. A warning that a null
> pointer
>
> > > exception was caught goes to the log but the advisories aren’t raised.
> >
> >
> > OK, thanks for sharing. Have you created a bug report for it? If not,
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 06:43:45 -0600, Tim Bain
wrote:
The situation is that the consumer gets a message from a queue and
then converts into into a different format and sends it to an
application server, which should respond with an acknowledgement
message. If the application server does not respond
Hi all,
first, thanks for the release of v1.0.0 of Artemis!
I'm currently experimenting with the use of message groups to quickly
distribute messages to workers while keeping order on items belonging
together. In order to avoid artificial grouping/sharding it would be perfect
for my use case if t
In this scenario, do you want to consume it twice, or do you really want to
consume it once but you're picking which consumer gets it? If the latter,
can you use selectors to make sure the right consumer gets the right
messages? Or maybe an embedded Camel route to send those messages to a
queue t
Does this happens reliably and quickly for you? Can you force it to happen
by taking a certain series of actions?
On Jun 8, 2015 11:45 PM, "ALi" wrote:
> It is 5.8.0. As it was working ok we didn't want to update it. The new
> version 5.10 had problems with stomp and websocket. We need to test t
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 07:24:24 -0400, Christopher Shannon
wrote:
>The use case you are trying to achieve is probably best done by using a
>transaction instead of individual acknowledgements. If you call rollback
>on the session then the message would be available to be redelivered to
>another consu
The use case you are trying to achieve is probably best done by using a
transaction instead of individual acknowledgements. If you call rollback
on the session then the message would be available to be redelivered to
another consumer.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:50 AM, spamtrap <
nospam.1.friedbad.
I have a setup where messages are produced as MQTT to ActiveMQ. I have two
consumers one as JMS and another MQTT.
When I am publishing message as JMS Message (using custom code or by
clicking "Send To" from ActiveMQ web console topics tab) to the topic
"foo", I am receiving the messages at both
Hi,
In some cases we want to allow another consumer to consumer a message
that has already been consumed. The session is opened using
INDIVIDUAL_ACKNOWLEDGE and the message has not been acknowledged. I
have tried closing the session where the message has been consumed but
the message is not ava
20 matches
Mail list logo
