hi all:
need your help.
ActiveMq version is 5.12.1, using mqtt protocol:
I want keep alive adjust to 6 minutes, so I define, but what I setting,
the keep alive remain 30 seconds:
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/how-to-setting-k
>if you allow a huge backlog of messages to buffer up for one
>consumer, the other consumers can't work on them even if they're sitting
>around idle.
Thanks for your answers but I don't understand that sentence
What do you mean ?
Regards
2015-11-10 16:56 GMT+01:00 Tim Bain :
> On Thu, Nov 5, 20
I don't think either Justin or I were trying to boil the complexities of
evaluating a software product's fit for an organization into a couple
checkboxes or a couple-question flow chart; the data type of these
decisions is double[], not boolean.
We're just giving you information to evaluate agains
The point I was trying to make was not what you described in your #2 (although
what you said there is true). However, Artemis isn't simply for legacy HornetQ
users. Numerous modifications and updates have been made to Artemis to make
migration for ActiveMQ 5.x users smoother (although much work
Thanks Gents for the posts.
>From what I gather are two points
1. If an organization is risk averse then they should stick to ActiveMQ
2. Artemis code base comes from HornetQ and so Artemis would be a natural
transition for people who are comfortable or have previous experience
working with Hornet
is your problem solved?
i have exact same problem as yours.
if you find the solution could you please share it with me?
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/JMS-to-JMS-Bridge-tp4679181p4703904.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at N
I believe that branch is for transacted sessions (which I'm also using).
If the test would use a transacted session, I'd say it no longer sees the cause.
On 12.11.2015 13:58, Gary Tully wrote:
I don't know, seems that branch does not result in rollback, but maybe it
does eventually and then the
Hi,
I have a use case where I have to use a non-transactional activemq broker,
configured with ActiveMQSession.INDIVIDUAL_ACKNOWLEDGE.
The broker is started and run locally, for a unit test, and it is configured
with persistence disabled, but with a sharedDeadLetterStrategy with
processNonPersis
I want to clarify this point to avoid potential confusion.
While it's technically true that Artemis reached 1.0 in June of this year it's
worth noting that it was based on what would have been HornetQ 2.5 (or perhaps
3.0). HornetQ has been baking in its own community and also as a part of JBoss
The issue was the "&" character to add parameter in the URL, if I use
"&", it's ok, so the kind of URL is :
jms.redeliveryPolicy.initialRedeliveryDelay=1&jms.redeliveryPolicy.redeliveryDelay=2&brokerConfig=xbean:activemq.xml
2015-11-12 17:11 GMT+01:00 Christian Schneider :
> No idea how
No idea how to do it in tomcat. In karaf I used blueprint and the
RedeliveryPolicy class.
Christian
On 12.11.2015 17:06, Mop Sophia wrote:
Hi Christian,
Thanks for your answer.
My connection factory is declared in Tomcat as a Resource. Do you know how
can I configure the redelivery policy, pl
Hi Christian,
Thanks for your answer.
My connection factory is declared in Tomcat as a Resource. Do you know how
can I configure the redelivery policy, please ?
When I add, this kind of option in the URL an error occured :
jms.redeliveryPolicy.maximumRedeliveries=1
Thanks,
Stéphane
2015-11-12 1
First the re deliveries in the factory are done then the ones on the server.
So they add up.
Christian
On 12.11.2015 16:53, Mop Sophia wrote:
Hi,
I try to confiigure the redelivery policy in my application through the
activemq.xml, I have added this part :
Hi,
I try to confiigure the redelivery policy in my application through the
activemq.xml, I have added this part :
I won't try to detail the differences; someone who knows Artemis well
should do that. But one high-level difference is that Artemis implements
JMS 2.0 and ActiveMQ implements only 1.0.
One factor to consider is how risk-averse the organization is when choosing
software. Artemis achieved 1.0 stat
On Nov 11, 2015 9:32 AM, "jahlborn" wrote:
>
> First, thank you so much for your detailed answers! I have a few more
> questions inline.
>
> > * NetworkConnector
> > > ** "dynamicOnly" - i've seen a couple of places mention enabling this
> > and
> > > some
> > >indication that it helps with s
I was thinking that if you were accidentally using retroactive consumers,
that might explain the behavior; I didn't mean it as a solution.
I'm still curious whether JMX shows the subscription successfully removed
when the problem occurs.
Can you reproduce the problem with only c1 (consumer) and c
I don't know, seems that branch does not result in rollback, but maybe it
does eventually and then the cause is missing.
A variant of the MessageListenerRedeliveryTest should prove it.
https://github.com/apache/activemq/blob/d6682e5476cd8cbefca04227ffa26a5d508d2494/activemq-unit-tests/src/test/ja
Trying to understand why dlqDeliveryFailureCause has a 'null' value, it seems
that in ActiveMQMessageConsumer.dispatch() the code
} catch (RuntimeException e) {
LOG.error(getConsumerId() + " Exception while
processing message: " + md.g
thank for your reply
1.i havn't use the retroactive befor and i'm try to set the ActiveMQ config
but have no changes,the problem is still there
2. non-durable subscriptions won't occur this problem and if i use ActiveMQ
Console of localhost (http://192.168.3.13
20 matches
Mail list logo
