>"Its normally a glitch in the network - or that the broker died." :
I'm pretty sure the broker was OK since a new client could get a connection
& session and create a temp queue. I previously registered another query (
http://www.nabble.com/Temp-queue-deleted-when-thread-interrupted-tf4393533s2354.html#a12527277
here ) regarding using VM style and temp queues getting deleted so this is
why we began using tcp style on server side.....
>"This is an inefficient way of using JMS BTW...you should try pool
producers if you can.":
Yes I was reading that but was wondering what is a ballpark figure to start
with for pooling e.g. 10 sessions & 10 producers (I realise its not possible
to accurately w/o application knowledge but a best guess would be
appreciated since they are heavy objects to create...?)
>"Failover causes the client to reconnect to the broker if the socket
dies.":
Regarding where the failover syntax is needed, is this required in the
transportConnector part of the activeMQ.xml or server side, or just the
client i.e. as part of the
org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQConnectionFactory.brokerURL for the
SimpleMessageListenerContainer?
/Tom
James.Strachan wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Unable-to-create-MessageProducer-tf4782623s2354.html#a13709793
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
