Hello,
This is my first message so greetings for all.
I am facing a situation where activemq seems not to respect the order for
dispatched messages when a redilevery is needed using activemq-client
5.14.3.
I am sending 60 messages to a queue with a single consumer, and I've
noticed that sometimes when a relivery of the message is needed, as a
consequence of rollback, another message from those 60 message is served
before the redelivered message. There is no maxRedelivery set.
What I notice debugging ActiveMQMessageConsumer is that the following
behaviour may occur:
- The 60 messages are dispatched in order in:
ActiveMQMessageConsumer:1376:
@Override
public void dispatch(MessageDispatch md) {
MessageListener listener = this.messageListener.get();
try {
clearMessagesInProgress();
...
unconsumedMessage is running so the message is sent to the listener.
- a rollback is performed and the message is redelivered (with a default
delay):
ActiveMQMessageConsumer:1305:
if (redeliveryDelay > 0 &&
!unconsumedMessages.isClosed()) {
// Start up the delivery again a little later.
session.getScheduler().executeAfterDelay(new
Runnable() {
@Override
public void run() {
try {
if (started.get()) {
start();
}
} catch (JMSException e) {
session.connection.onAsyncException(e);
}
}
}, redeliveryDelay);
} else {
start();
}
Periodically, the messages enqueued in the session are attempted to be
consumed (as the unconsumedMessages from the consumer is not running they
are not sent to the listener to be consumed and they are enqueued as
unconsumedMessages).
But if the thread scheduled from redelivery is started when the iteration
from the unconsumed messages is being performed, the unconsumedMessages is
started in:
public void start() throws JMSException {
if (unconsumedMessages.isClosed()) {
return;
}
started.set(true);
unconsumedMessages.start();
session.executor.wakeup();
}
and the message that is being considered from session (in the other thread)
is sent to the listener before the redelivered message, which may be an
error in order.
Is this the expected behaviour? I expected that the order was mantained in
this cases.
Thanks in advance for your help and clarification
