Hi Joe,

I think problem is that your thread is blocked on producer send(), so no
matter sessions and connections nothing else could be done until it is
unblocked.

Cheers
--
Dejan Bosanac

Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Blog - http://www.nighttale.net


On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Joe Fernandez <
joe.fernan...@ttmsolutions.com> wrote:

>
> I am running some exception tests against AMQ 5.2 that force producer
> flow-control to occur and have a question regarding sessions and flow
> control. Here's my set up.
>
> Te test app, which is using an 'embedded' broker, has an object (Ob1) that
> implements MessageListener. Ob1 creates two AMQ connections (con1, con2), a
> session (s1) from con1, a session (s2) from con2, a producer (p1) from s1
> and a consumer (c2) from s2. The c2 consumer is assigned Ob1's onMessage()
> method via c2.setMessageListener(this). The onMessage() method has a built
> in delay to simulate a slow consumer. The ack mode is set to
> AUTO_ACKNOWLEDGE. The producer and consumer are producing to and consuming
> from the same destination, respectively. The message that is produced by p1
> is a relatively small text message; maybe 30 characters in length.
>
> When the test starts, p1 floods the queue with messages and producer flow
> control kicks in, at which point p1 gets blocked. However, the calls to the
> onMessage method also stop so the test hangs.  Given that p1 and c2 are
> operating within their own separate connections and sessions, shouldn't the
> AMQ client code continue to call the onMessage method with messages even
> when p1 gets placed in flow control mode?
>
> Side note: if I place con2, s2, and c2 in a separate thread object, then
> the
> test runs just fine. That is, the p1 producer goes in and out of flow
> control as c2's onMessage continues to get called.
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Problem-With-Producer-Flow-Control--tp23744774p23744774.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>

Reply via email to