On 12/11/2007, TOPPER_HARLEY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"It could just be the socket has been dropped.":
> Is socket dropping a common occurence or simply related to the quality of
> the network one is running on (my TCP level knowledge isn't great).
Its normally a glitch in the network - or that the broker died.
> Would
> vm: style for the brokerURL prevent this since it would be insice JVM?
Yes
> This is our setup:
> We have a number of predefined topics which we use when broadcasting updates
> and number temp queues for direct request/responses communication (one for
> each of our clients). We maintain one connection on the server side and as
> we send data from different threads, we cache a threadlocal session object
> (since ActiveMQSession is for single thread use). For each individual
> message send, we create and destroy a MessageProducer based on the
> destination as follows:
>
> try {
> // Thread local retrieval
> final Session session = this.getSession();
> producer = session.createProducer(destination);
> producer.send(message);
> } finally {
> if (producer != null) {
> try {
> producer.close();
> } catch (final JMSException e) {
> e.printStackTrace();
> }
> }
> }
This is an inefficient way of using JMS BTW...
http://activemq.apache.org/how-do-i-use-jms-efficiently.html
you should try pool producers if you can.
> >"You night wanna enable failover...":
> We have only been assigned one port for the broker (specified obviously as
> part of the brokerURL property) so I dont know if failover can assist us:
Failover causes the client to reconnect to the broker if the socket dies.
> my
> understanding of failover is that you need more than one URI and AMQ
> switches to another one if one broker goes down:
Not true - it works fine with a single broker URI
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source SOA
http://open.iona.com
