Hi Justin,
Xin Chen has raised a number of defects against the Java JMS AMQP 1.0
client, and has provided patches to fix these defects.[1][2][3][4]
The defects are limitted to this artefact and do not affect the regular JMS
client or the Java Broker and thus have very limitted impact.
I've revi
On 09/12/13 14:36, Rafael Schloming wrote:
The -7 error code means PN_TIMEOUT, i.e. there was no work that could be
performed within the time limit you passed in, in this case 0. I'm a little
puzzled why you are calling pn_messenger_work twice. The way you have your
code structured the first and
On 09-12-2013 16:22, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 12/09/2013 06:18 PM, Marcelo Vieira wrote:
In the script running as a daemon that read the messages, I'm using
'my_queue; {create:always, link:{x-subscribe:{exclusive:true}}}'
The senders are using the address: "my_queue; {node: {type: queue}}" on
the
On 12/09/2013 06:18 PM, Marcelo Vieira wrote:
In the script running as a daemon that read the messages, I'm using
'my_queue; {create:always, link:{x-subscribe:{exclusive:true}}}'
The senders are using the address: "my_queue; {node: {type: queue}}" on
the method createReceiver to open the sessio
On 09-12-2013 16:07, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 12/09/2013 05:51 PM, Marcelo Vieira wrote:
So actually a better suggestion might be, e.g.:
'my-queue; {create:always, link:{x-subscribe:{exclusive:True}}}'
That should prevent anyone else consuming from it.
Thanks, this way above worked, now only o
On 12/09/2013 05:51 PM, Marcelo Vieira wrote:
So actually a better suggestion might be, e.g.:
'my-queue; {create:always, link:{x-subscribe:{exclusive:True}}}'
That should prevent anyone else consuming from it.
Thanks, this way above worked, now only one client can consume the
queue, but it
So actually a better suggestion might be, e.g.:
'my-queue; {create:always, link:{x-subscribe:{exclusive:True}}}'
That should prevent anyone else consuming from it.
Thanks, this way above worked, now only one client can consume the
queue, but it seems that it blocks other clients from sendin
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Fraser Adams
wrote:
> Hey all,
> I've been able to get messenger to behave fairly sensibly in a
> non-blocking way, but what I've yet to achieve is getting it to behave in a
> properly "asynchronous" event-driven way where I fire up a looping
> "notifier" after ever
