I am aware of the fact that when using temp Qs the data goes away when the connection is lost. I cope with this with some extra logic on the client side. It remembers each request via a table. Entries are removed from this table when replies are rcvd. When the connection is lost a reconnect is done and the table is then used to resend any requests for which the reply was pending.
I am still puzzled as to what the received wisdom is regarding the use of temporary queues. Are they of no practical use? I get around the problem of lost connections as per the above. And I do this because I thought that temporary Qs are to be preferred to a reply Q for scalability reasons. I am not so sure now.... I note that a reply Q is a very common way of doing client-server request-response despite the advice from the ActiveMQ web page. Hmmmm. Regards, Andrew Marlow Internet ivan.pecho...@gmail.com 22/06/2010 16:23 Please respond to users@activemq.apache.org To users@activemq.apache.org cc Subject Re: Temporary queues and a WAN 2010/6/22 <andrew.mar...@uk.bnpparibas.com>: > As per the advice at > http://activemq.apache.org/how-should-i-implement-request-response-with-jms.html > I am using temporary Qs for my replies. > ... > > Because of various technical obstacles that I wont go into here, I am only > able to run with ActiveMQ locally. ActiveMQ is fine there and so is > IBM-MQSeries. I am not able to see if ActiveMQ would still work in the WAN > situation. But IBM does not seem to like it. What advice/recommendations > do people have please? As far as I understand, temporary queues in ActiveMQ are directly linked to client connection. If client connection to broker is interrupted, all the temporary queues created within this connection are lost. If there were any requests in the middle of processing, replies to these requests are lost (because ReplyTo destination specified in these requests is no longer valid). The same problem remains in case if client uses failover transport. That's why we don't use temporary queues for ReplyTo. ActiveMQ gurus, please correct me, if I am wrong. Actually, I didn't perform enough testing to be 100% sure of the statements above. ___________________________________________________________ This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is prohibited. Please refer to http://www.bnpparibas.co.uk/en/information/legal_information.asp?Code=ECAS-845C5H for additional disclosures.
