Hello Jon!
Thanks for fixing this issue.
Best,
Christian
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Jon Anstey wrote:
> Yeah, good idea. I've made this change.
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Claus Ibsen
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
> > > FYI took another loo
Yeah, good idea. I've made this change.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
> > FYI took another look at this and it is not a real issue. When using
> async
> > sends in ActiveMQ on the producer side we can't really guarantee
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jon Anstey wrote:
> FYI took another look at this and it is not a real issue. When using async
> sends in ActiveMQ on the producer side we can't really guarantee the order
> in which messages will be added to the queue. To gaurantee order we can
> either enable syn
FYI took another look at this and it is not a real issue. When using async
sends in ActiveMQ on the producer side we can't really guarantee the order
in which messages will be added to the queue. To gaurantee order we can
either enable sync sends, persistent messages, or transactions (all boil
down
lol missed that comment... glad to be back home to a fast desktop ;)
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Christian Müller <
christian.muel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a bit surprising about this failed unit test [1]. It looks like on slow
> boxes like the Jenkins server and Jon's Laptop ( sorry for t
Was looking into this on Friday but didn't solve it. I'll have another look
today but if someone is really interesting in digging in ActiveMQ ;) the
hint is that it works when you disable async sends.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> I guess it depe
Hi Christian,
I guess it depends of the JMS connection pool configuration (and the
message retention/timeout).
I will try to take a look later today from the airport.
Regards
JB
On 11/13/2011 12:36 AM, Christian Müller wrote:
I'm a bit surprising about this failed unit test [1]. It looks li
