@Robbie I'm not sure what you mean by exactly-once. If you mentioned it in terms of delivery semantics, then nope, I'm not sure that would be enough. Exactly-once is just a pipe dream, isn't it? Even if broker sends this ack back, your client could die in the meantime.
I would merely like to be sure that the broker has seen and processed the ack, that's it. The same way as it is done for message transfer. I'm sending the message to the broker and the broker replies: I've got it. @Timothy So I've tried to do it both ways. With settled=true and settled=false. And I got no reply. But as Robbie suggests, maybe the broker just doesn't support this. On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:19 PM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tim's reference will cover this, but essentially what you are > describing would only typically happen as part of doing exactly-once > if the client and broker had negotiated a receiver-settles-second link > rcv-settle-mode. The broker doesnt support that mode to my knowledge, > and so will indicate it is only doing receiver-settles-first. Even if > it did support it, most clients that might let you negotiate such a > rcv-settle-mode probably still cant do exactly-once as that also > requires fixed link names with unsettled state link resumption > negotiation (and some form of client side persistence to do that > properly) which I'm not aware of a client supporting. > > On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 17:44, Krzysztof <h4v...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > So as I said, I'm sending Disposition frame "amqp:disposition:list" > > with Accepted state "amqp:accepted:list". My assumption is that the > broker > > should reply with the same, once the message is > > successfully acknowledged (aka removed from queue). Currently, > AmqpNetLite > > sends dispositions is a fire-and-forget manner (sth like qpid-jms does > > with jms.forceAsyncAcks enabled) which isn't particularly safe, as the > > client cannot be sure that its disposition was processed. > > > > For more context --> > > https://github.com/Azure/amqpnetlite/issues/367#issuecomment-517421722 > > > > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 5:46 PM Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On 5/10/20 11:34 AM, Krzysztof wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I am working on the implementation of AcceptAsync for AmqpNetLite > but I > > > > wasn't able to make Artemis issue any response to disposition frame > with > > > > the accepted state. Is this actually a supported feature? Maybe I am > > > > missing sth. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Krzysztof > > > > > > > What frames are you sending and what frames are you wanting to get > back, > > > it isn't entirely clear from this little context, a bit more > specificity > > > might help here. > > > > > > -- > > > Tim Bish > > > > > > >
