Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

Not really, as Gordon and I discussed below that they aren't wrong to overlook the disposition frames (which the client isnt sending itself, Proton is implicitly, and we should perhaps stop it doing so). The reasoning for ignoring them mentioned in the comment isn't quite correct, since

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

Hi again, I got some answers from Microsoft here (in the comments after the article): https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/service-bus-amqp-protocol-guide/ Looks like they have different opinion about the Disposition frames. On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Robbie Gemmell

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

On 6 July 2016 at 17:57, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 06/07/16 17:42, Gordon Sim wrote: >> >> On 06/07/16 17:14, Dale Green wrote: >>> >>> I have an update on this issue. >>> >>> According to Microsoft, state=Released is supported and now I can confirm >>> that this is true. If the

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

On 6 July 2016 at 17:50, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > Hi Dale, > > It isnt invalid from a protocol perspective, as dispositions only > actually refer to session-scoped information, not link > (consumer/producer) scoped information. I deleted an overly > complicated

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

On 06/07/16 17:57, Gordon Sim wrote: On 06/07/16 17:42, Gordon Sim wrote: On 06/07/16 17:14, Dale Green wrote: I have an update on this issue. According to Microsoft, state=Released is supported and now I can confirm that this is true. If the message is released during the lifetime of the

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

On 06/07/16 17:42, Gordon Sim wrote: On 06/07/16 17:14, Dale Green wrote: I have an update on this issue. According to Microsoft, state=Released is supported and now I can confirm that this is true. If the message is released during the lifetime of the consumer (before Detach), the same

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

Hi Dale, It isnt invalid from a protocol perspective, as dispositions only actually refer to session-scoped information, not link (consumer/producer) scoped information. I deleted an overly complicated description of why that is. ServiceBus isnt necessarily wrong in ignoring the dispositions

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

On 06/07/16 17:14, Dale Green wrote: I have an update on this issue. According to Microsoft, state=Released is supported and now I can confirm that this is true. If the message is released during the lifetime of the consumer (before Detach), the same message is immediately unlocked and is

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

I have an update on this issue. According to Microsoft, state=Released is supported and now I can confirm that this is true. If the message is released during the lifetime of the consumer (before Detach), the same message is immediately unlocked and is available for the same consumer or others

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

Thanks for the update. That seems to confirm that theres not much the client can do to help here, as both of the mechanisms it could use to assist in this situation (explicitly releasing unconsumed messages, or doing no prefetching to begin with) appear to be running into server bugs, in this case

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

On 30/06/16 15:42, Dale Green wrote: I can see that messageConsumer.close(); produces such log lines for the prefetched messages: SENT: Disposition{role=RECEIVER, first=7, last=7, settled=true, state=Released{}, batchable=false} But the same messages are still locked for the lock duration.

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

Sorry for the misunderstanding: The code I was testing is actually closing the consumer explicitly. However, I tested now the Receiver example and can confirm, that it doesn't matter for the server if the consumer is closed or not. I can see that messageConsumer.close(); produces such log lines

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

On 29 June 2016 at 11:08, Dale Green wrote: > Hi Robbie, > > Thanks for the hints! I couldn't solve my problems, but let me leave some > more info, which can be useful for other people. > > Closing the consumer explicitly didn't help (it's closed on session close >

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

On 29/06/16 21:50, Robbie Gemmell wrote: On 29 June 2016 at 19:43, Gordon Sim wrote: On 29/06/16 12:39, Robbie Gemmell wrote: On 29 June 2016 at 11:08, Dale Green wrote: Closing the consumer explicitly didn't help (it's closed on session close

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

On 29 June 2016 at 19:43, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 29/06/16 12:39, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> >> On 29 June 2016 at 11:08, Dale Green wrote: > >>> >>> >>> Closing the consumer explicitly didn't help (it's closed on session close >>> anyway). >> >> >> I

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

On 29/06/16 12:39, Robbie Gemmell wrote: On 29 June 2016 at 11:08, Dale Green wrote: >> Closing the consumer explicitly didn't help (it's closed on session close anyway). I thought that could be the case, but just wanted you to check in case the server did

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

On 29 June 2016 at 11:08, Dale Green wrote: > Hi Robbie, > > Thanks for the hints! I couldn't solve my problems, but let me leave some > more info, which can be useful for other people. > > Closing the consumer explicitly didn't help (it's closed on session close >

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

Hi Robbie, Thanks for the hints! I couldn't solve my problems, but let me leave some more info, which can be useful for other people. Closing the consumer explicitly didn't help (it's closed on session close anyway). However, I have the feeling that the lifetime of the consumer does not affect

Re: Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

On 28 June 2016 at 17:00, Dale Green wrote: > Hi people, > > I have a problem using Qpid JMS 0.9 with Service Bus. > > The use case is the following: > I want to create a connection, session, and a queue consumer and receive 0 > or 1 messages within a given timeout. That

Service Bus: unreceived messages stay locked (peek-and-lock)

Hi people, I have a problem using Qpid JMS 0.9 with Service Bus. The use case is the following: I want to create a connection, session, and a queue consumer and receive 0 or 1 messages within a given timeout. That is, receive(timeout) is called only once. Immediately after that, the session and