So why can't you use transactions? Won't you get what you want if you commit the transaction after every successful message and rollback()/close() and then reconnect after every failed one?
Also is the app server going to fail to respond to *certain* messages, or is it going to fail to respond to *any* messages? If the latter, you can delay the reconnect till you figure out that the web service is available again. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:09 AM, spamtrap < nospam.1.friedbad...@spamgourmet.com> wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 06:43:45 -0600, Tim Bain > <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > > The situation is that the consumer gets a message from a queue and > then converts into into a different format and sends it to an > application server, which should respond with an acknowledgement > message. If the application server does not respond to a particular > message then we want to be able to allow another ActiveMQ consumer to > pick up the message and send it elsewhere. Any consumer should be > able to process the message so we don't want to use selectors. > > >In this scenario, do you want to consume it twice, or do you really want > to > >consume it once but you're picking which consumer gets it? If the latter, > >can you use selectors to make sure the right consumer gets the right > >messages? Or maybe an embedded Camel route to send those messages to a > >queue that's specific to the consumer that should get them? > >On Jun 9, 2015 6:00 AM, "spamtrap" <nospam.1.friedbad...@spamgourmet.com> > >wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 07:24:24 -0400, Christopher Shannon > >> <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >The use case you are trying to achieve is probably best done by using a > >> >transaction instead of individual acknowledgements. If you call > rollback > >> >on the session then the message would be available to be redelivered to > >> >another consumer. > >> > >> I don't think I can use a transaction because all messages are > >> committed at once. We need to be able to select which messages may be > >> redelivered and which not, hence the individual acknowledge mode is > >> used. > >> > >> Will the rollback work with individual acknowledgements? > >> > >> > >> > > >> >On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:50 AM, spamtrap < > >> >nospam.1.friedbad...@spamgourmet.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> In some cases we want to allow another consumer to consumer a message > >> >> that has already been consumed. The session is opened using > >> >> INDIVIDUAL_ACKNOWLEDGE and the message has not been acknowledged. I > >> >> have tried closing the session where the message has been consumed > but > >> >> the message is not available to the other consumer. How can I > achieve > >> >> what I need? > >> >> > >> >> TIA. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > >
