I wrote a utility that take a message off the queue based on JMSMessageId,
copy its contents but update its header information. That is why i look up
by JMSMessageId only to ensure uniqueness.
After further investigation, I realized that my problem happens only when I
stop my Jboss. My Jboss insta
Tim,
Thanks for chiming in. As I am testing the configuration to determine
deployment architecture and configuration, there are currently no
clients available that are using this topology. I am trying to
understand the behavior so can make right choices for deployment. Having
said that, I was
On 12/11/2015 09:56 AM, Tim Bain wrote:
> Tim,
>
> What I understand from your answer is that no, there is no way for a
> consumer that has consumed (but not yet acked) more than one message to
> nack only one of them while remaining connected and continuing to consume.
> Both options you mentioned
I don't think priorityBackup=true is what you want; in fact, the note in
http://activemq.apache.org/failover-transport-reference.html on
rebalanceClusterClients explicitly points out that the two features
interfere with each other.
Do you have randomize=true on your client URI? If not, I think yo
Tim,
What I understand from your answer is that no, there is no way for a
consumer that has consumed (but not yet acked) more than one message to
nack only one of them while remaining connected and continuing to consume.
Both options you mentioned involve nacking all unacked messages, which
might
The cache and the cursor are the same thing. When your consumers are
keeping up, all messages are in memory and priority dispatch works
correctly. When consumers fall behind, eventually some messages will be in
memory while others will be on disk waiting for space to be available in
memory. Once
Also, prioritizedMessages=true is not required for the JMS grouping
feature, as documented at http://activemq.apache.org/message-groups.html.
On Dec 11, 2015 6:53 AM, "Tim Bain" wrote:
> I don't see why you need one high-priority consumer and one
> medium-priority consumer. Using prioritizedMess
I don't see why you need one high-priority consumer and one medium-priority
consumer. Using prioritizedMessages=true already ensures that the broker
will hand your consumers the highest priority messages first; just leave it
at that.
Also, separating high and low processing isn't a requirement (
I got it. Thanks
What I did:
Created my own plugin which extends BrokerPluginSupport. By this I can
override start() and stop() methods.
Thanks,
Anuj
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Proper-way-to-stop-ActiveMQ-tp4704801p4704882.html
Sent from the Activ