Steve, thank you for the answer.
I use journal, durable queue and persistence messages, c++ client as message
producer and java as a consumer.
As we determined, the problem was in journal.
We are going to upgrade to MRG last version in few weeks. I would like to know,
how should I solve such inc
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Chris Sears wrote:
> Hi Kim,
>
> Just to add to Rajith's comments, it sounds like you may be trying to use
> the ring queue, onMessage(), queue browsing and client acknowledgements in
> a
> way they were not designed to work.
>
> If you have multiple clients that a
Is there a replacement for SubscriptionManager and AsyncSession?
-Original Message-
From: William Henry [mailto:whe...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 8:25 AM
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Cc: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: What is the difference in the classes in qpid/client a
Hi Chris,
You hit the nail right on the head. I will look into using a topic exchange.
Also, thank you for all the info. I did not understand this stuff as well as I
thought I did, and you filled in quite a few gaps for me.
Thanks,
Kim
I've been playing with the Headers Exchange and set up a producer client to
send messages to the exchange. I have two properties DataService & ItemOwner
- for my test I sent some messages with ItemOwner=fadams and some with
ItemOwner=jdadams
How I'd intend to use this would be to have two separate
many thanks, I'll have a play with this.
you sir are a gentleman indeed!!
thanks again.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-qpid-users.2158936.n2.nabble.com/viewing-Headers-Exchange-binding-in-qpid-config-tp6158738p6158843.html
Sent from the Apache Qpid users mailing list archive at N
On 03/10/2011 06:05 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
Hi David,
I am thinking that as I am figuring out thing in Qpid that it
would be useful to document them in the wiki. As a newbie, I
think that my perspective of the API would be different than
that of a seasoned Qpid user or developer.
Right, and t
On 03/10/2011 06:06 PM, fadams wrote:
I've been using a Headers Exchange and it has proved very useful for me but
it's causing a little pain from an administration/auditing perspective.
If I use qpid-config -b queues I can in theory see the queues and the
bindings, but unfortunately for the head
On 03/10/2011 05:47 PM, fadams wrote:
I'm currently using Qpid 0.8 which uses AMQP 0.10
We're about to start using it pretty seriously and we'll have a fair number
of clients connecting. I'm conscious that I've been arguing for a design
that in effect introduces a significant degree of coupling,
Many thanks, I'll give that a go.
You're a star - cheers
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-qpid-users.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Is-it-possible-to-have-persistent-circular-queues-tp6158613p6158749.html
Sent from the Apache Qpid users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I've been using a Headers Exchange and it has proved very useful for me but
it's causing a little pain from an administration/auditing perspective.
If I use qpid-config -b queues I can in theory see the queues and the
bindings, but unfortunately for the headers exchange I can only see the
binding
Hi David,
> I am thinking that as I am figuring out thing in Qpid that it
> would be useful to document them in the wiki. As a newbie, I
> think that my perspective of the API would be different than
> that of a seasoned Qpid user or developer.
Right, and that's a perspective we really need.
On 03/10/2011 05:56 PM, fadams wrote:
Thanks that's cool.
Could you please tell me how to achieve it?
I think that it's the limit policy so the things are:
"ring" and "flow-to-disk"'
So I've used flow-to-disk for durable queues but I'm pretty sure that when I
tried both it didn't work (I set i
Thanks that's cool.
Could you please tell me how to achieve it?
I think that it's the limit policy so the things are:
"ring" and "flow-to-disk"'
So I've used flow-to-disk for durable queues but I'm pretty sure that when I
tried both it didn't work (I set it up with qpid-config).
I may have scre
I'm currently using Qpid 0.8 which uses AMQP 0.10
We're about to start using it pretty seriously and we'll have a fair number
of clients connecting. I'm conscious that I've been arguing for a design
that in effect introduces a significant degree of coupling, which is kind of
ironic as it's logical
On 03/10/2011 05:34 PM, fadams wrote:
I know that it's possible to have in memory circular queues by setting the
behaviour to "ring" and it's clearly possible to have persistent/durable
queues but is it possible to make a durable queue circular?
Yes, a 'ring' queue can be durable.
-
I know that it's possible to have in memory circular queues by setting the
behaviour to "ring" and it's clearly possible to have persistent/durable
queues but is it possible to make a durable queue circular?
Under the hood the persistence layer is clearly a circular buffer, but it
doesn't appear t
Hi,
I am thinking that as I am figuring out thing in Qpid that it would be useful
to document them in the wiki. As a newbie, I think that my perspective of the
API would be different than that of a seasoned Qpid user or developer. I am
seeing some things that are confusing and as I ask the ques
The documentation for the C++ API has a subsection on optimisation, in
particular it refers to aynchronous messaging being optimal and of course
then refers to the need to explicitly call session.sync().
With the Java JMS API all of this is far from clear, although by default
communication is asyn
Hi Barys,
> Greetings!
>
> We have faced with several errors while using qpid 0.6 in our
> environment. It is really strange, because we don't use cluster:
Could you upgrade to 0.8? Also, 0.10 will be released within a few
weeks.
> 1) 2011-mar-10 14:00:13 critical Journal
> "FORTS.Instru
I'm using the v0.8 C++ broker with JMS clients
I'm aware that Message Selectors are implemented "client side", so this
was a bit of an experiment, my intention is ultimately to use the
headers exchange, with a message selector in place if I need finer control.
I implemented a simple selector an
Hi,
I was trying to write a Python script using the Python client API
version 0.8 and Python 2.7.1 (client under Windows, broker MRG 1.3 on
RHEL). Normal scripts with PLAIN authentication and no SSL encryption
seem to be working fine. But when I tried to connect using SSL, I got
following error me
On Mar 9, 2011, at 5:34 PM, "Hickerson, David A"
wrote:
> What is the difference between the classes in qpid/client and qpid/messaging
> in C++?
One, qpid/client, is supporting the older API that doesn't have the new
"addressing". Though you can have a qpid/client client send/receive mess
On 03/10/2011 02:31 PM, Matt Paul wrote:
It is in the client library, but I think we found the cause. The producer
that was getting the error had a "custom" libbind linked in which apparently
wasn't compatible with the qpid client library.
Great, thanks for letting us know!
---
Gordon,
It is in the client library, but I think we found the cause. The producer
that was getting the error had a "custom" libbind linked in which apparently
wasn't compatible with the qpid client library.
Thanks,
Matt
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 03/09/2011 07:47
Greetings!
We have faced with several errors while using qpid 0.6 in our environment. It
is really strange, because we don't use cluster:
1) 2011-mar-10 14:00:13 critical Journal "FORTS.Instruments_In":
get_events() returned JERR_JCNTL_AIOCMPLWAIT; wmgr_status: wmgr: pi=23 pc=3
po=0 aer=
On 03/09/2011 07:47 PM, Matt Paul wrote:
Hi all,
I'm having a somewhat strange error when trying to do a connect with a
producer (using the client namespace):
2011-03-09 13:37:22 error Caught exception in state: 1 with event: 2:
Operation not permitted (qpid/sys/posix/Socket.cpp:94)
This is on
On 03/10/2011 12:33 AM, Hickerson, David A wrote:
What is the difference between the classes in qpid/client and qpid/messaging in
C++?
I have noticed that Connection is in each. For a client application, which is
supposed to be used?
The qpid::messaging namespace is the one we recommend. Tha
On 03/10/2011 12:29 AM, Hickerson, David A wrote:
So if messaging::Address.name maps to a queue or topic. Does the
messaging::Address.subject provide further refinement of messages sent to that
queue or topic?
Yes. However at present there is no ability in the c++ broker to
selectively recei
29 matches
Mail list logo
