On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 07:29:16 -0600, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
>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? No. It may take some time to process a message so we operate a 'window'. Therefore there would normally be more than one message outstanding. >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. We have to assume it may fail to respond to certain messages. >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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
