Certainly, but if order matters, wouldn't you expect to get all or none
of your messages that depend upon each other? Why would you send x as
non-persistent and x+1 as persistent if x+1 requires x to be processed?
Roger Hoover wrote:
There are applications in which message order matters and you generally
wouldn't expect message properties to affect the order of delivery unless
you're using a selector.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Ben Chobot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why wouldn't you want it to be this way?
Roger Hoover wrote:
Using STOMP on AMQ 5, if I enqueue some persistent and non-persistent
messages and then consume them, they don't get consumed in the order in
which they were produced. The non-persistent messages are delivered
first
(with their relative order preserved) followed by the persistent
messages
(also with their relative order preserved).
AMQ 4 preserved message order regardless of persistence settings.
Is this expected behavior? Is it controlled by any configuration?
Thanks,
Roger
