Yes, that sounds correct.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:42 AM, deepak_a <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > In the architecture I am working in, messages come into a ActiveMQ Queue > from IBM MQ. > An application/consumer polls the messages from this active MQ Queue. > > Messages from IBM MQ have a priority field set. > > By default ActiveMQ ignores the priority, so I have added the > prioritization-destinationPolicy in broker-config.xml. > > In addition to that I am also considering setting prefetch limit to 0 in > Camel's app Context (bean amq.connectionFactory) > as per > http://activemq.apache.org/what-is-the-prefetch-limit-for.html > > > Without this I suppose - newly created high priority messags could be > backed up behind prefetched low priority ones. > > - That's what I inferred from the above link. But same link also points out > that - a high prefetch limit means better performance. > So eventually its a trade off b/w performance and message prioritization? > > is my understanding correct? > > Note: Active-MQ is configured within JBoss & Camel does the job of moving > messages b/w IBM MQ, Active MQ and the consumer. > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Message-prioritisation-Vs-prefetch-limit-tp4663778.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- *Christian Posta* http://www.christianposta.com/blog twitter: @christianposta
