ver so the client is attempting to reconnect, since
>the port is wrong it never will obviously so giving it the correct port
>is the way to go.
>
>On 08/15/2016 08:34 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>> If the wrong port is given when trying to connect to a broker then we
>> get
If the wrong port is given when trying to connect to a broker then we
get a hanging problem. The stack backtrace is:
#0 0x7f0ca3837a82 in pthread_cond_timedwait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from
/usr/lib64/libpthread.so.0
(gdb) bt
#0 0x7f0ca3837a82 in pthread_cond_timedwait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from
/usr
ay end up in a TIME_WAIT state. In this case it should
be client rather than the server IMHO. If this was the situation then
I would not see this problem.
>On Mar 11, 2016 4:55 AM, "spamtrap"
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:13:32 +, "James A. Robinson"
e fewer sockets (e.g, batching messages)
>
>This might be helpful to read: http://www.sean.de/Solaris/soltune.html
Thanks - I'll read this.
>Anyway, this is just a theory based on the error message, it may very well
>be some other problem.
>
>On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:55 AM
ight be logged as an
>"address in use" error.
>
>Jim
>
>
>On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:07 AM Timothy Bish wrote:
>
>> On 03/10/2016 10:37 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>> > [ActiveMQ-CPP v3.9.0]
>> >
>> > We have a c++ program which connects to a b
[ActiveMQ-CPP v3.9.0]
We have a c++ program which connects to a broker, sends a message to a
topic and then closes the connections & exits. Every now and then it
fails to connect reporting a "Address already in use" exception
(based on ex.what()).
The code is like this:
- cut --
try
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:18:41 +, spam trap
wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:41:56 -0500, Timothy Bish
> wrote:
>
>>On 01/07/2016 09:20 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>>> Environment: Solaris 11 (sparc)
>>> Compiler: Solaris Studio 12.3
>>>
>>> CFLAG
Environment: Solaris 11 (sparc)
Compiler: Solaris Studio 12.3
CFLAGS="-xarch=generic64"
CXXFLAGS="-xarch=generic64"
Configure options:
./configure '--disable-ssl' '--prefix=' '--with-apr='
CC: -library=Cstd cannot be used with -library=stlport4
[Removing -library=Cstd -library=Crun from the bu
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:30:51 -0500, Timothy Bish
wrote:
>On 11/27/2015 03:38 AM, spam trap wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:03:35 -0500, Timothy Bish
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/26/2015 08:24 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:06:15 -0500, Tim
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:06:15 -0500, Timothy Bish
wrote:
>On 11/26/2015 03:07 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:39:53 -0500, Timothy Bish
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/25/2015 11:29 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:07:53 -0500, Tim
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:39:53 -0500, Timothy Bish
wrote:
>On 11/25/2015 11:29 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:07:53 -0500, Timothy Bish
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/25/2015 10:50 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:33:38 -0500, Tim
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:07:53 -0500, Timothy Bish
wrote:
>On 11/25/2015 10:50 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:33:38 -0500, Timothy Bish
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/25/2015 05:47 AM, spam trap wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>&g
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:33:38 -0500, Timothy Bish
wrote:
>On 11/25/2015 05:47 AM, spam trap wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have the following code:
>>
>> cms::Message *pMessage;
>> ...
>> std::vector propertyNames = pMessage->getPropertyNames();
>>
>> According to valgrind this leaks memory. propertyNames
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 11:08:29 -0800 (PST), JackOfAllTrades
wrote:
>All I can do at the moment
>
>
>
>auto_ptr factory( new ActiveMQConectionFactory
>(MY_BROKER_URL));
>
>cms::Connection* conxn=null;
>conxn=factory->CreatConnection();
>
>auto_ptr myConn(dynamic_cast(conxn));
>
>myConn->start();
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 07:21:19 -0700 (PDT), JackOfAllTrades
wrote:
>I'm trying to update to AMQ CPP 3.9.0.
>
>The calls to the consumer receive() and receiveNoWait() will not return.
>There are messages available on the queue. Older version 2.4.4 worked.
>
>Anybody have any thoughts on this?
Can
[ActiveMQ 5.11.1]
If I try to browse an ActiveMQ queue which contains one or more
messages with JConsole I get the following error message:
"Problem invoking browseMessages: java.rmi.UnmarshalException: error
unmarshalling return; nested exception is:
java.io.WriteAbortedException: writing aborted;
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 05:02:36 -0700 (PDT), skrish018c
wrote:
>Wanted to know if there is any possibility to achieve parallel processing
>with message priority with single queue. Is there any supporting document?
Are you trying to get different consumers to process different
priority messages?
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:03:10 -0400, Timothy Bish
wrote:
>On 10/09/2015 10:56 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:49:51 -0400, Timothy Bish
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/09/2015 10:37 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:34:17 +0100, spa
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:49:51 -0400, Timothy Bish
wrote:
>On 10/09/2015 10:37 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:34:17 +0100, spamtrap
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ActiveMQ-CPP 3.9.0
>>>
>>> A program is blocking waiting for a lock:
>>>
>
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:34:17 +0100, spamtrap
wrote:
>ActiveMQ-CPP 3.9.0
>
>A program is blocking waiting for a lock:
>
>#0 0x00367980b5bc in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 ()
> from /lib64/libpthread.so.0
>#1 0x7fcab6c6c006 in (anonymous namespace)::doMonito
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:01:15 -0400, Timothy Bish
wrote:
>On 09/25/2015 11:44 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:34:56 -0400, Timothy Bish
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/25/2015 11:29 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>>>> If you set the message priority with cms:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:34:56 -0400, Timothy Bish
wrote:
>On 09/25/2015 11:29 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>> If you set the message priority with cms::Message::setPriority() and
>> then send the message with cms::MessageProducer::send() then the
>> priority of the message is ignor
If you set the message priority with cms::Message::setPriority() and
then send the message with cms::MessageProducer::send() then the
priority of the message is ignored and the message is sent with the
default priority of the MessageProducer. This seems like a bug to me.
ActiveMQ-CPP 3.9.0
A program is blocking waiting for a lock:
#0 0x00367980b5bc in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 ()
from /lib64/libpthread.so.0
#1 0x7fcab6c6c006 in (anonymous namespace)::doMonitorEnter (
monitor=0x26f63b0, thread=0x2605960)
at decaf/internal/util/concurrent/
ActiveMQ-CPP
I need to, in some cases, return prefetched messages to the broker.
At present I do the following:
- rollback the session
- stop the consumer
- close the consumer
- delete the consumer
- stop the session
- delete the session
- delete the destination
But the messages remain unavailab
Is it possible for a consumer to only consume messages above a certain
priority, rather than just get them in priority order? Is so how can
this be done?
I am using ActiveMQ-CPP - latest version.
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:31:56 -0400, Timothy Bish
wrote:
>On 08/27/2015 04:40 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>> When I call the cms:Message acknowledge() method I get the message
>> "Pointer operator-> - Pointee is NULL." printed to stdout/err. How
>> can I avoid this?
>
When I call the cms:Message acknowledge() method I get the message
"Pointer operator-> - Pointee is NULL." printed to stdout/err. How
can I avoid this?
oes restarting the session mean creating a new session object, or calling
>start() on the current one after calling stop()? Is the behavior the same
>if you do it the other way?
>On Jun 12, 2015 4:30 AM, "spamtrap"
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:01:16 -0600,
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:01:16 -0600, Tim Bain
wrote:
>Confirm that step by step. Are the messages still on the broker when the
>transaction rolls back? Are they still on the broker when the client
>disconnects? Wherever you lose them, the previous step is the one to
>investigate.
I've now done
number of consumers to increase
>> throughput.
>> >
>> >
>> >Take a look at the documentation here:
>> >http://activemq.apache.org/message-redelivery-and-dlq-handling.html for
>> >more info on how messages can be redelivered.
>> >
>
nnect till you figure out that the web service is available
>again.
We have to assume it may fail to respond to certain messages.
>On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:09 AM, spamtrap <
>nospam.1.friedbad...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 06:43:45 -0600, Tim Bain
>
them?
>On Jun 9, 2015 6:00 AM, "spamtrap"
>wrote:
>
>> 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
;On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:50 AM, spamtrap <
>nospam.1.friedbad...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>> 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_
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
