It's a good point. I can't think of an application that would do it on
purpose. A bug in the producer might be the only scenario where it could
cause problems.
I was just running some tests while preparing to upgrade to AMQ5 and wanted
to be clear on this.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Ben Ch
Certainly, but if order matters, wouldn't you expect to get all or none
of your messages that depend upon each other? Why would you send x as
non-persistent and x+1 as persistent if x+1 requires x to be processed?
Roger Hoover wrote:
There are applications in which message order matters and yo
There are applications in which message order matters and you generally
wouldn't expect message properties to affect the order of delivery unless
you're using a selector.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Ben Chobot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why wouldn't you want it to be this way?
>
> Roger Ho
Why wouldn't you want it to be this way?
Roger Hoover wrote:
Using STOMP on AMQ 5, if I enqueue some persistent and non-persistent
messages and then consume them, they don't get consumed in the order in
which they were produced. The non-persistent messages are delivered first
(with their relati
Hi Rob,
Is this the same thing as the Total Ordering feature (c.f.,
http://activemq.apache.org/total-ordering.html), or is it something
different? While it may be expected behavior, it was a little surprising to
read that was what would happen.
Best,
Jim
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Rob Da
On 26 Feb 2008, at 06:49, Roger Hoover wrote:
Using STOMP on AMQ 5, if I enqueue some persistent and non-persistent
messages and then consume them, they don't get consumed in the order
in
which they were produced. The non-persistent messages are delivered
first
(with their relative order p
