That's right, there will always be a chance of duplicate messages - hence the
JMSRedelivered flag in the JMS specification itself.
Specifically responding to the use-case in question, the failover transport
re-attempts message sends if they have not completed successfully on a prior
attempt. If t
Interesting - I don't get them. I may have gotten one or two a long time ago
- not sure now.
I wonder if it could be anti-spam or something similar causing the failures.
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Fwd-Warning-from-users-activemq-apache-org-tp4698899
I get these messages all the time, too. It's annoying. So far, they seem
harmless.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015, 8:27 AM Tim Bain wrote:
> Requesting the index of the last 100 messages and looking them up on Nabble
> has worked for me when I get them.
> On Jul 9, 2015 8:38 AM, "Robbie Gemmell" wrote:
>
Requesting the index of the last 100 messages and looking them up on Nabble
has worked for me when I get them.
On Jul 9, 2015 8:38 AM, "Robbie Gemmell" wrote:
> On 9 July 2015 at 14:34, Timothy Bish wrote:
> > On 07/09/2015 09:29 AM, Tim Bain wrote:
> >> Every month or two I get a message like t
The timeout setting only works when the pending outbound request over the
transport is a message send, and only when the transport is disconnected and
stays disconnected.
If any request other than a message send is pending (e.g. consumer or
producer creation), the timeout is not applied. Also, if
On 9 July 2015 at 14:34, Timothy Bish wrote:
> On 07/09/2015 09:29 AM, Tim Bain wrote:
>> Every month or two I get a message like the one below indicating failure to
>> deliver a few messages to me. Without me doing anything, everything goes
>> right back to working normally, so I assume there's
I added
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/How+does+ActiveMQ+compare+to+Artemis
and
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/What+version+should+I+use
to the General category of the FAQ; those updates should auto-populate on
the web page within a day.
On Tue, Jun 30,
Yeah, I got this message last week as well. As you said it seems to be
fine and I continue to get messages.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Tim Bain wrote:
> OK, then I won't bug my email provider about it. Thanks for the
> confirmation.
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Timothy Bish wrote:
I've updated the content on the wiki (
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/Getting+Started); it
should be automatically pushed to the web site within a day.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:21 PM, harry wrote:
> This is the link which i found.
>
> http://activemq.apache.org/getting-sta
I believe there is no way to guarantee once-and-only-once delivery in the
face of failures; there will always be race conditions that allow the two
sides of the interaction to believe different things about whether the
transaction succeeded or failed, and you have to choose whether you'd
rather hav
OK, then I won't bug my email provider about it. Thanks for the
confirmation.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Timothy Bish wrote:
> On 07/09/2015 09:29 AM, Tim Bain wrote:
> > Every month or two I get a message like the one below indicating failure
> to
> > deliver a few messages to me. Withou
I wouldn't call it arrogance, but it's definitely a bad assumption (and my
experience has been that even at large companies, intranets are generally
less stable and reliable than the Internet as a whole, so assuming that
your networking department can't possibly do something wrong gives them far
to
Hi Gunnar,
I don't think we have this exact feature, but you can achieve similar
behaviour using message groups. See:
https://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/1.0.0/message-grouping.html
Thanks
Martyn
On 02/07/15 10:34, Gunnar Morling wrote:
Hi,
Is the "exclusive consumer" feature [1] al
On 07/09/2015 09:29 AM, Tim Bain wrote:
> Every month or two I get a message like the one below indicating failure to
> deliver a few messages to me. Without me doing anything, everything goes
> right back to working normally, so I assume there's some transient failure
> somewhere, but I have no i
Every month or two I get a message like the one below indicating failure to
deliver a few messages to me. Without me doing anything, everything goes
right back to working normally, so I assume there's some transient failure
somewhere, but I have no idea what it is.
Do other people get these as we
Thank you very much for your reply. I think it is very helpful.
1. You are right. I should not be that arrogant to say that it cannot be the
problem of INTRANET, I will ask the network department for help next week.
2. For now, the 20ish clients experience those connection problems
continually. W
If you are using JDK 8u31 or greater, SSLv3 is disabled by default. The
typical way to disable a cipher is to use the addExcludeProtocols method on
the ssl context factory, such as:
sslContextFactory.addExcludeProtocols("SSLv3");
I'm not sure if there is an easy way to do this with a websocket tr
If there are transactions (and persistent messages), you'd actually get
redelivered messages, not lost messages, when you restart the broker.
Neither one is ideal, but it might be less of a problem than lost messages.
Are there other relevant log lines on either broker prior to the one you
quoted?
Hi,
We have a hub-and-spoke style multibroker network running activemq-5.9.1 on
ubuntu linux and openjdk 7. They are connected on WAN.
If there is a network error, the brokers reconnect automatically, but
sometimes the DemandForwardingBridge stops working, the messages don't get
published from on
19 matches
Mail list logo
