Re: [ANN] Apache ActiveMQ 6.1.0 has been released!

e Onofré wrote: > Hi, > > If you are still using ActiveMQ 5.x clients, I recommend staying with > an ActiveMQ 5.x broker. > > Regards > JB > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 11:58 AM Endre Stølsvik > wrote: > > > > Hi! > > Thanks for the release! > >

Re: [ANN] Apache ActiveMQ 6.1.0 has been released!

Hi! Thanks for the release! I have a question wrt. upgrading a 50+ microservice solution: How is the compatibility between old JMS clients (5.x) towards the 6+ server versions? I guess the wire protocol doesn't care one bit wrt. javax./jakarta? But do the ActiveMQ team have any suggestion wrt. su

Re: Is it possible to route message to a specific consumer?

I've written the following little article in conjunction with the library Mats3, which does not exactly describe your problem, but I believe an aspect of it might be relevant: https://mats3.io/patterns/work-queues/ The core idea there, and the aspect which might be relevant, is to not use actual M

ActiveMQ Classic: NIO or TCP?

Hi! Wrt. TransportConnectors: What is the general recommendation? Is NIO better than TCP? Or the other way around? I do get the obvious points wrt. threads - but it also depends on the implementation, and real-life experiences wrt. throughput and latency. Thanks a lot, Kind regards Endre

ActiveMQ Classic: Message prioritization affected by persistent/non-persistent

Hi! This regards ActiveMQ Classic. Setting: 1. Prioritization enabled on broker with policyEntry 2. 1x consumer for "Queue" with selector "JMSPriority = 9" 3. 1x consumer for "Queue" with selector "JMSPriority <> 9" 4. Send 10k messages to "Queue" in a transaction, with default pri 4

Re: DLQ for Topics?

s, etc. If this is a new message flow, consider using Virtual > Topics which allow pub-sub but the consumer apps read from queues instead > of topics. Queues are much easier for developer teams to rationalize all > the flows (error handling, etc) and Virtual Topics are easier fo

DLQ for Topics?

Hi! Is DLQ supported for plain Topics? I can't seem to get that to work. Also, I wonder what would happen if a topic was subscribed to by 100 consumers, and then 50 of them rolled back ("Nack'ed") the delivery? Thanks, Kind regards, Endre.

Re: Broker redelivery..

d for is possible, the current behavior is what I'd > have expected. > > Tim > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022, 1:49 PM Endre Stølsvik wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > Trying to set up broker redelivery, and was wondered really much on how > > that interacts wit

Broker redelivery..

Hi! Trying to set up broker redelivery, and was wondered really much on how that interacts with the default client side redelivery. And now I seem to know, and this was pretty strange: You get both?! So, with setMaximumRedeliveries(2) on the broker, and without doing anything on the client, lite

Re: ActiveMQ 5.16.4 drop date

That's great! Tell me if there's anything needed to be done. Kind regards, Endre Stølsvik On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 7:24 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre wrote: > Hi Endre, > > I’m doing the review now but, yeah, it looks good enough to include it for > 5.16.4. > > Regards >

Re: ActiveMQ 5.16.4 drop date

No chance of getting this along? https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/749 (The "firstMessageTimestamp" - I could quickly change the name if that is wanted, to "headMessageTimestamp") Even if a more comprehensive solution is wanted, the PRs rather small improvement nevertheless stands on its own.