On 07/13/2012 05:45 PM, Vijay Devadhar wrote:
Hi Gordon,
Thanks for the suggestion.
What is the reason for recommendation to not mix onMessage() and
subsequent receive?
I believe it will make the code simpler and clearer and see no drawbacks.
In theory, this will work well since onMessage()
Thanks Rajith;
The reason for onMessage() is to be able to listen on multiple consumers
from a single thread; If you used receive(), you need to have one thread
per consumer blocked on receive and in a system that is general purpose
messaging framework for multiple consumers with varying traffic
Both onMessage() and receive() will fetch messages.
By default we prefetch 500 messages at a time (if available on the server).
I don't see any advantage of using both receive and ML together, it
will only complicate your code.
There is no periodic polling, when messages become available the
brok
Hi Gordon,
Thanks for the suggestion.
What is the reason for recommendation to not mix onMessage() and
subsequent receive? In theory, this will work well since onMessage()
is like a signal and receive() will actually fetch all the data;
This will avoid the need for periodic polling of data.
In
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 10:23 -0400, Andy Goldstein wrote:
> We use these apps all the time. I'd prefer to see them all moved out of the
> tests directories and moved into someplace like tools. It would also be nice
> to see them installed as part of the distribution.
>
+1
> Andy
>
> On Jul 11
On 07/13/2012 01:10 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Are the x-declare options to "node" or "link" documented anywhere? I
have the same question for x-bindings and x-whatever-else-may-exist, of
course...
Yes, there are some tables near the foot of
http://qpid.apache.org/books/0.16/Programming-In-Apache-
On 13/07/12 12:33, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 07/13/2012 10:34 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
What happens if I send a message to an exchange without any queues
connected to it? Are they just thrown away? I'm assuming that they are,
and that raises another question: Is there any way I can know if a
message I
On 13/07/12 13:39, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 07/13/2012 12:04 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Hi.
I'm wondering if there is any way I can set up options on a
qpid::messaging::Sender so that a direct exchange will be created if
it's missing. I mean, for topic exchanges, I do something like
sender=session.
On 07/13/2012 12:04 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Hi.
I'm wondering if there is any way I can set up options on a
qpid::messaging::Sender so that a direct exchange will be created if
it's missing. I mean, for topic exchanges, I do something like
sender=session.createSender("myexchange; { create: se
Hi.
I'm wondering if there is any way I can set up options on a
qpid::messaging::Sender so that a direct exchange will be created if
it's missing. I mean, for topic exchanges, I do something like
sender=session.createSender("myexchange; { create: sender, delete:
never, node: { type: topic
On 07/13/2012 10:34 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
What happens if I send a message to an exchange without any queues
connected to it? Are they just thrown away? I'm assuming that they are,
and that raises another question: Is there any way I can know if a
message I just sent reached a queue, without act
Hi,
What happens if I send a message to an exchange without any queues
connected to it? Are they just thrown away? I'm assuming that they are,
and that raises another question: Is there any way I can know if a
message I just sent reached a queue, without actually checking queues
directly?
-
12 matches
Mail list logo
