that does look like a bug. a little junit test case would be great. The only difference with vm should be push back (flow control or blocking) if the usage limits are reached.
On 26 August 2011 14:40, Aleksandar Ivanisevic <aleksan...@ivanisevic.de> wrote: > > Another "bug or feature" question ;) > > if i use vmDurableCursor, the messages are not redelivered to durable topics > > <pendingDurableSubscriberPolicy> > <vmDurableCursor/> > </pendingDurableSubscriberPolicy> > > i have ack: client-individual and if I disconnect without > acknowledging, the message is gone (it is persistent BTW). As soon as > I remove the above policy the messages are getting redelivered. > > the behaviour is the same in 5.5.0 and 5.6-snapshot from today > > I would say this is a bug, but i'm confused with the following > sentence in message cursors page: > http://activemq.apache.org/message-cursors.html > > "This can be very fast, but also has the downside of not being able to > handle very slow consumers or consumers that have been inactive for a > long time:" > > What does "not being able to handle" exactly mean? My consumer has > been away maybe a second or so, I don't think that really qualifies as > "long time". > > > -- http://fusesource.com http://blog.garytully.com
