That would help. But surely the same mechanism could be used with single outstanding messages as then an ACK with a RECEPIT would also mean that I would get the RECIEPT before the next message?
I have not problem with the asychronous nature of the messaging, just the order of messages. I cannot put it in a buffer, because not further messages come until I ack and the ack has a receipt request on it - so I am effectively blocked. James.Strachan wrote: > > On 8/22/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> Yes.. Unfortunately this is how asynchronous messaging works. There >> is no way around it unless you switch to a request/reply model like >> HTTP uses. But then you loose all the performance gains that a >> asynchronous model provides! >> >> If your application is single threaded, you should place those >> unexpected messages into a buffer while your are polling for your >> response. Then when your application does a receive(), it should >> first check that buffer for messages and nothing is there, then it >> should wait on the socket for dispatched messages. > > Agreed - though maybe we could enforce the RECEIPT of the SUBSCRIBE > first before we dispatch any messages? > -- > > James > ------- > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Stomp-Receipts-tf2145063.html#a5933510 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
