Re: Queue and exchange with the same name

2012-07-16 Thread Sitapati das / Joshua J Wulf
My apologies if this is me totally failing to grok how this works... A little more experimenting (this was done using the Fedora 16 packages): qpid-config add queue doppleganger qpid-config add exchange topic doppleganger (in either order of execution) creates a queue *and* an exchange, both wit

Queue and exchange with the same name

2012-07-16 Thread Sitapati das / Joshua J Wulf
I'm working through the Address tutorial here: http://qpid.apache.org/books/0.16/Programming-In-Apache-Qpid/html/section-addresses.html I was not expecting this behaviour: $ spout 'amq.topic; {assert: always, node: { type: topic}}' test-message Message(properties={'spout-id': 'ea2e7b50-4153-4d4e-

Re: Batch/Bulk receive messages using java client?

2012-07-16 Thread Robbie Gemmell
Ok, so to check I understand correctly, and seek clarification on some points... You have potentially 30 application instances that have 5 connections, 20 sessions per connection, and are each creating 2 consumers on all 6000 priority queues (using 600 consumers per session), thus giving up to 150

Re: Receiver.unsettled()

2012-07-16 Thread Sitapati das / Joshua J Wulf
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 07/16/2012 01:22 PM, Sitapati das / Joshua J Wulf wrote: > >> I'm trying to use the receiver.unsettled() method of the python receiver >> object (mostly to figure out what it does). >> >> When I call it, however, I get this error: >> >> Tra

Re: Sending to deleted auto delete queue

2012-07-16 Thread Sitapati das / Joshua J Wulf
I see (I think). I don't have a production use case atm, I'm just experimenting. I was using auto-delete queues so that my tests cleaned up after themselves. I was under the (mistaken) impression that a sender gave me a handle on a queue. If I understand this correctly, what I actually get is a h

Re: Batch/Bulk receive messages using java client?

2012-07-16 Thread Praveen M
Hi Robbie. Thank you for writing back. Please see inline for answers to some of the questions you had. On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > Hi Praveen, > > I have talked this over with some of the others here, and tend to agree > with Gordon and Rajith that mixing asynchronous

Re: Overhead of creating (private reply) queue?

2012-07-16 Thread Virgilio Fornazin
We used here to create a private reply queue for each request/reply (and also, we discovered leaks with Ted Ross in 0.10 version that time). After that, we changed our code to pre-create a private reply queue for each connection that perform request / reply operations, using message. message.Reply

Re: Overhead of creating (private reply) queue?

2012-07-16 Thread Rajith Attapattu
Using a correlation-id is less overhead than working with a huge amount of queues. This will allow you to service a large number of request/replies with a relatively smaller number of queues. You could probably experiment with both approaches and see for yourself. Rajith On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at

Re: Overhead of creating (private reply) queue?

2012-07-16 Thread Toralf Lund
On 16/07/12 15:01, Rajith Attapattu wrote: I'd agree with Gordon. If at all possible I will pre-create my private queues, rather than creating them on demand. Writing a bit of extra code for working with a fix number of queues is worth from a performance standpoint. It's not just about handling t

Re: Overhead of creating (private reply) queue?

2012-07-16 Thread Rajith Attapattu
I'd agree with Gordon. If at all possible I will pre-create my private queues, rather than creating them on demand. Writing a bit of extra code for working with a fix number of queues is worth from a performance standpoint. Regards, Rajith On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Gordon Sim wrote: > On

Re: Receiver.unsettled()

2012-07-16 Thread Gordon Sim
On 07/16/2012 01:22 PM, Sitapati das / Joshua J Wulf wrote: I'm trying to use the receiver.unsettled() method of the python receiver object (mostly to figure out what it does). When I call it, however, I get this error: Traceback (most recent call last): File "unsettled.py", line 14, in

Re: Overhead of creating (private reply) queue?

2012-07-16 Thread Gordon Sim
On 07/16/2012 12:34 PM, Toralf Lund wrote: Hi. What kind of overhead to you expect from having to create the ("private") queue when initialising a qpid::messaging::receiver? If it is not a durable queue then the overhead is not that high, however... I'm implementing request-response type com

Re: Sending to deleted auto delete queue

2012-07-16 Thread Gordon Sim
On 07/16/2012 12:04 PM, Sitapati das / Joshua J Wulf wrote: Hi, I noticed that if I create an autodeleting queue and it gets auto-deleted, my attempts to send to it don't cause an exception, and my messages seem to disappear into the ether. Is that expected behaviour? Expected by whom?! It is

Receiver.unsettled()

2012-07-16 Thread Sitapati das / Joshua J Wulf
I'm trying to use the receiver.unsettled() method of the python receiver object (mostly to figure out what it does). When I call it, however, I get this error: Traceback (most recent call last): File "unsettled.py", line 14, in msgs=rx.unsettled() File "", line 6, in unsettled File "/u

Re: Batch/Bulk receive messages using java client?

2012-07-16 Thread Robbie Gemmell
Hi Praveen, I have talked this over with some of the others here, and tend to agree with Gordon and Rajith that mixing asynchronous and synchronous consumers in that fashion isn't a route I would really suggest; using two sessions makes for complication around transactionality and ordering, and I

Overhead of creating (private reply) queue?

2012-07-16 Thread Toralf Lund
Hi. What kind of overhead to you expect from having to create the ("private") queue when initialising a qpid::messaging::receiver? I'm implementing request-response type communication over a direct exchange, with a private "auto-delete" queue for responses (whose address is specified in repl

Sending to deleted auto delete queue

2012-07-16 Thread Sitapati das / Joshua J Wulf
Hi, I noticed that if I create an autodeleting queue and it gets auto-deleted, my attempts to send to it don't cause an exception, and my messages seem to disappear into the ether. Is that expected behaviour? I'm using the python client. Here's a minimal test case that reproduces the behaviour: i

Re: c++ broker federation over ssl

2012-07-16 Thread wei6rong
hi Martin, it looks like you have set qpid route ssl link successfully, I currently want to set a queue route working between my 2 c++ brokers running 0.16, after putting a lot of effort into it, i coun't get it done also. the scenario is as following: I started the 2 qpidd with each of fo