Wildcards aren’t quite that flexible - the docs say “don’t specify any string after ‘>’ on your wildcard express, it will be ignored” http://activemq.apache.org/wildcards.html <http://activemq.apache.org/wildcards.html>
For what it’s worth - I got around this issue with DLQs by changing the naming pattern - I put DLQ at the front, rather than the end. > On Apr 29, 2016, at 9:25 AM, Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net> > wrote: > > I just tested by sending messages into a queue test. Unfortunately the filter > ">.DLQ" seems to include "test". So it seems everything after ">" is ignored. > Is there any way to express that I want all queues that end in DLQ? > > Christian > > On 29.04.2016 17:17, Christian Schneider wrote: >> I took a stab at creating a config with a separate kahadb for the DLQs: >> >> <mKahaDB directory="${activemq.base}/data/kahadb"> >> <filteredPersistenceAdapters> >> <filteredKahaDB queue=">.DLQ"> >> <persistenceAdapter> >> <kahaDB /> >> </persistenceAdapter> >> </filteredKahaDB> >> <filteredKahaDB> >> <persistenceAdapter> >> <kahaDB /> >> </persistenceAdapter> >> </filteredKahaDB> >> </filteredPersistenceAdapters> >> </mKahaDB> >> >> Does that make sense? >> >> I am unsure about the ">" wildcard as I am not sure if it can be used at the >> start. All examples I found till now only seem to use it at the end. >> I would be happy about a confirmation that what I do is correct or a better >> solution. >> >> Christian >> >> On 29.04.2016 14:39, Christian Schneider wrote: >>> We have the issue that our journals at a customer are very large. We >>> analyzed the messages in the system and found that most of the time >>> the normal queues stay at a very low number of messages near to 0. The only >>> queues that hold messages for longer periods of time are the dead letter >>> queues. >>> >>> The journals are much bigger than the dead letter queue contents. >>> >>> My assumption is that most of the journals only contain very few still >>> needed messages and the ones they contain are the messages that now are in >>> the dead letter queues. >>> Still the journals can not be cleaned up of course. >>> >>> So what I would like to to is to use one kahadb for the regular queues and >>> a different one for the dead letter queues. Does that make sense? >>> I will try to do this using "Multi(m) kahaDB persistence adapter": See >>> http://activemq.apache.org/kahadb.html >>> >>> I also wonder if it would make sense that ActiveMQ cleans up its journals >>> regularly. It could simply move all oldest messages to the newest jorunal >>> to kind of pack if denser. >>> Would that work? >>> >>> Christian >>> >> >> > > > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > http://www.talend.com >