On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Claus Ibsen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:05 PM, David Tombs <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I am using the resequencer EIP in a situation where it would be better >> never to pass on a message at all than to process it out-of-order. The >> EIP, however, will deliver out-of-order messages if the timeout occurs >> before receiving an expected message. For example, we receive: >> >> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, (wait 10s), 6. >> >> In this case, the rest of the route will receive messages in the above >> order with 6 last. >> >> Any ideas on how to avoid this? My only thought right now is to put a >> filter after the resequencer to reject any messages that would precede >> the last message passed on. >> > > You can use a very high timeout value.
Thanks for the response, but a very high timeout value doesn't really solve my problem because I really need "never". It is also possible to have dropped messages, so such a high timeout could harm performance in that case. What do you think about my filter idea? Thanks again, David -- Wise men _still_ seek Him.
