I think we will need to see the client code to see if there's anything obviously wrong with the use of Temp Destinations
On 29 Apr 2013, at 21:21, SledgeHammer <gro...@firstam.com> wrote: > Hmm... I switched the response queue to be a "permanent" queue and it looks > like it doesn't have the same memory leak issue. > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Memory-leak-tp4666300p4666412.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
