Hello,
Can you share any information on when this new major version of ActiveMQ for
Artemis release date is planned for? Or at least a date range?
We are using the Classic version currently and have been testing development
releases of Artemis, most recently 2.20 and really could use that
Hello,
We binary serialize a C# object (which contains soap XML) and store it into a
queue using ActiveMQBytesMessage class. (We are a .net/c# shop hence using
activemq nms .net client against activemq 5.16.3)
Snippet here as an example.
byte[] msgBytes = payload.Content as byte[];
Hi Justin.
> On 27 Jan 2022, at 10:59 pm, Justin Bertram wrote:
> You may be suffering from ARTEMIS-3587 [1]. I recommend you move to 2.20.0.
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3587
I think you may be right - I’ve updated to 2.20.0 and I’ve yet to see the
problem re-appear.
Thanks for clarifying.
Justin
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 3:16 PM Dondorp, Erwin
wrote:
> Justin,
>
> This string was in header "extraProperties._AMQ_ACTUAL_EXPIRY", as shown
> in the (single) message viewer.
> I think this is a field that only appears in expired AMQP messages.
> The difference
Justin,
This string was in header "extraProperties._AMQ_ACTUAL_EXPIRY", as shown in the
(single) message viewer.
I think this is a field that only appears in expired AMQP messages.
The difference between string and number fields became apparent when I worked
on annotating datetime fields with
Erik, Justin,
Is this related to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3159 (solved
in 2.18.0) ?
That one was about expiry of messages on multiple queues under one address.
Both expiry and multi-nack are about moving messages to a secondary destination
(ExpiryQueue or DLQ).
Erwin
Looking at the code it looks to me like the type of the original data
should be preserved. Where are you seeing the Strings? Are you debugging
the broker or are you seeing them in the data returned from the broker to
the web console?
Justin
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 5:48 PM Dondorp, Erwin
wrote:
There's lots of moving pieces here and the devil is in the details, as they
say. I think we'd need some kind of test-case to reproduce (ideally
_without_ Quarkus) what you're seeing in order to investigate this.
Justin
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 7:43 AM Erik Åsén wrote:
> Hi!
> First of all, I
Thanks for following up. I'm glad you got it sorted out.
Justin
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 8:31 AM Matthew Harris
wrote:
> It was an issue with how I was creating the container, sorry for any
> confusion.
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 8:12 AM Matthew Harris
> wrote:
>
> > Any updates on this? For
