On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Gary Tully wrote:
> KahaDB is the current default persistence provider, and kaha will be
> depreciated in the future.
>
Gary I think you should log a JIRA about this. Then we can start
getting the message out to the community that the old kaha is
deprecated, so pp
KahaDB is the current default persistence provider, and kaha will be
depreciated in the future.
I agree, the naming is a little confusing, it reflects something of
the evolution of the stores.
There was jdbc, then amq store, then kaha, then kahadb.
KahaDB has been hardening for the past 2 years,
It indeed seems that there are two different Kaha persistence adapters, the
KahaPersistenceAdapter and KahaDBPersistenceAdapter. So what you are saying
is that the KahaDBPersistenceAdapter should work better? Or were you just
pointing out an error in my previous post (me talking about KahaDB instea
from the stack trace, it appears you are using the old kaha persistence adapter.
you should be using
On 22 October 2012 08:33, Pauli Kaila wrote:
> For the latest release of our product we switched from Apache DerbyDB to
> KahaDB for ActiveMQ persistence. We also upgraded ActiveMQ to 5.6.0. Now
For the latest release of our product we switched from Apache DerbyDB to
KahaDB for ActiveMQ persistence. We also upgraded ActiveMQ to 5.6.0. Now two
of the three production installations, that have been updated to our latest
version, are experiencing issues with ActiveMQ persistence causing Active
