Good to know, Robbie. Thanks for the clarification!
Justin On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 12:45 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > nitpick: AMQP 1.0 also supports 'named producers'. Thats actually all > the protocol supported until an additional capability was documented > for doing 'anonymous producer' stuff as e.g needed by some of JMS 1.1. > Though its worth noting all producers on the 'simplified api' added in > JMS 2.0 are effectively anonymous. > > On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 at 15:48, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > The broker does its best to track producers, but most protocols don't > even > > have the concept of a "named" producer (i.e. a producer that's registered > > on the server to a particular endpoint). Most protocols only support > > "anonymous" producers which can send to any endpoint at any time which > > means in most circumstances the broker doesn't actually know when a > client > > is going to send a message (if at all) and when a client does send a > > message the broker doesn't know where it's going to go until it actually > > arrives. > > > > The only API I'm aware of that has named producers is JMS and even JMS > > supports anonymous producers. Furthermore, of the three protocols used by > > JMS clients (i.e. core, OpenWire, and AMQP) only OpenWire supports named > > producers. > > > > In short, there's no real way for the broker to know when there's a > > producer "on" an address. > > > > The situation for consumers is, of course, the complete opposite. The > > broker must know about consumers so it can dispatch messages to them. > > > > Ultimately if an address is removed while a slow producer is still > sending > > messages to it then it will be re-created automatically if the > > configuration supports that. > > > > Hope that helps! > > > > > > Justin > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 9:17 AM Dondorp, Erwin > <erwin.dond...@ns.nl.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > Classification: Public > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > Today I noticed that an address was auto-removed while it still had a > > > producer active. > > > The producer has a very low production rate, its interval was above the > > > value of auto-delete-addresses-delay, so the timing constraints were > still > > > ok. > > > Nothing was broken and I can easily increase > auto-delete-addresses-delay. > > > > > > In the source-code, in function "reapAddresses", it looks to me as if > > > Artemis does not try to prevent such address-removal with a producer > > > present. > > > > > > Therefore, the question remains: > > > Should an address be auto-removed when there still is a producer > active? > > > > > > thx! > > > Erwin > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > Deze e-mail, inclusief eventuele bijlagen, is uitsluitend bestemd voor > > > (gebruik door) de geadresseerde. De e-mail kan persoonlijke of > > > vertrouwelijke informatie bevatten. Openbaarmaking, vermenigvuldiging, > > > verspreiding en/of verstrekking van (de inhoud van) deze e-mail (en > > > eventuele bijlagen) aan derden is uitdrukkelijk niet toegestaan. > Indien u > > > niet de bedoelde geadresseerde bent, wordt u vriendelijk verzocht > degene > > > die de e-mail verzond hiervan direct op de hoogte te brengen en de > e-mail > > > (en eventuele bijlagen) te vernietigen. > > > > > > Informatie vennootschap<http://www.ns.nl/emaildisclaimer> > > > > >
