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
>
