Re: Queue question

2007-02-06 Thread James Strachan
On 2/5/07, GaryG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: GaryG wrote: > > > On 2/5/07, Givental, Gary wrote: >> Ah yes, I should have clarified that :) >> >> The nature of the applications makes that impossible. We need to >> ensure that A) all the tasks are processed in sequential order, B) >> each work ta

Re: Queue question

2007-02-05 Thread GaryG
[backfilling some messages] GaryG wrote: > > > On 2/5/07, Givental, Gary wrote: >> Ah yes, I should have clarified that :) >> >> The nature of the applications makes that impossible. We need to >> ensure that A) all the tasks are processed in sequential order, B) >> each work task is tied

Re: Queue question

2007-02-05 Thread GaryG
[backfilling some messages] > James, > > I appreciate your help on this. > > To clarify, here's the gist of what I'm trying to accomplish: > > Essentially it is a worker farm that is controlled via a single master > controller. There are some Topics on which status information is > published b

Re: Queue question

2007-02-02 Thread James Strachan
Its maybe best if you step back a bit and clearly describe the exact semantics you want for your message exchanges as it sounds a little like a few concepts are being muddled together. Lets start with the absolute basics of how queues and topics differ... http://activemq.apache.org/how-does-a-que

Re: Queue question

2007-02-02 Thread GaryG
Thanks for the clarification. While poking around with JConsole connecting to the broker via JMX I found the option to purge Queues. And after tweaking with the code a bit, came up with the following piece of code that actually *does* purge a queue. Has anyone used this approach before and are

Re: Queue question

2007-02-02 Thread GaryG
Thank you for explaining the PERSISTENT setting to me. I'm still unclear about a few things, though. First, what is a DurableSubscriber then, how does that affect anything, and how does that work with PERSISTENT/non settings? Secondly...what I'm really trying to accomplish, is that some of the

Re: Queue question

2007-02-02 Thread YoungSoul
As far as I know - and someone please correct me if I am wrong... The NON_PERSISTENT has to do with whether or not the jms service provider ( activemq in this case ) will persist the message in case ACTIVEMQ dies. If you try your scenario below but add step 2.5 of stop activemq, since you send d

RE: Queue question

2007-02-01 Thread Suchitha Koneru \(sukoneru\)
Please read about queueing and durable subscriptions from the following link http://java.sun.com/products/jms/tutorial/1_3_1-fcs/doc/basics.html -Original Message- From: GaryG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:49 AM To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org S

RE: Queue question

2007-02-01 Thread Suchitha Koneru \(sukoneru\)
When you use a queue connection , irrespective of other settings, message delivery is guaranteed. When you use a topic connection , message delivery is guaranteed only when the delivery mode is persistent and the subscriber is durable. Suchitha. -Original Message- From: GaryG [mailto:[E

Re: Queue question

2007-02-01 Thread James Strachan
Persistence v non persistence only applies to what happens to messages if you reboot the broker; otherwise the semantics are pretty similar. If you don't want a message to be sent to consumers which are not there, don't use a queue, use a topic. On 2/1/07, GaryG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm