also observed, that I can prevent this from happening the first time,
> when
> I stop() the consumer when a message is not acked and start() the consumer
> after recovery (lines 72 and 101 in my example TestJmsConsumer.java). Might
> this be the solution?
>
>
>
> --
> View
q.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Stop-and-resume-message-consuming-tp4670118p4670280.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 7, recover() 6, 8, ...
> Any further hints?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Stop-and-resume-message-consuming-tp4670118p4670141.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
*Christian Posta*
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
twitter: @christianposta
on.
So the message order in my app is not guaranteed: 1, 2, 4, recover() 3, 5,
7, recover() 6, 8, ...
Any further hints?
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Stop-and-resume-message-consuming-tp4670118p4670141.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list
> consumer)?
>
> None of the consumer needs to die upon an error of the application/database
> behind, so failover is not the topic of this question.
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Reto
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabbl
consumer)?
None of the consumer needs to die upon an error of the application/database
behind, so failover is not the topic of this question.
Thanks for any help,
Reto
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Stop-and-resume-message-consuming-tp4670118.html
Sent from
