[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Rob Davies reassigned AMQ-900:
------------------------------
Assignee: Rob Davies
> Inconsistent queue browsing and message dequeueing behaviour
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AMQ-900
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-900
> Project: ActiveMQ
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: JMS client
> Affects Versions: 4.0.1
> Environment: Win2K, java 1.5.0_07-b03
> Reporter: Ben Hood
> Assignee: Rob Davies
> Fix For: 5.2.0
>
> Attachments: browsing_jms_receiver.7z
>
>
> I am trying to browse a queue in a monitor thread in a non-transactional
> session. For each element in the enumeration, I spawn a worker thread to
> consume a message in non-blocking fashion from within a transacted session.
> This works fine for 1 message. The problem is that when I enqueue more than
> one message, subsequent calls to receiveNoWait() return null, although there
> must be messages in the queue.
> I have created a test case to reproduce this (ActiveMQTestCase) which is part
> of the m2 project that I have attached. This can be executed in the normal m2
> fashion by running "mvn test" on the command line.
> This problem originally arose when I was using ActiveMQ 4.0.1 as a JMS
> transport for Mule 1.3rc4 and I created a Mule specific message receiver that
> tried to exploit the non-transactional browsing and offloading to
> transactional worker threads strategy that I have implemented in the test
> case.
> So to eliminate any interaction from Mule, I used a different JMS provider,
> and the message receiver worker fine (with Joram and Weblogic).
> I also tried a 4.1-snaphot of ActiveMQ, but it behaved the same as the 4.0.1
> release.
> So then I wrote a test case using pure JMS against ActiveMQ 4.0.1 (see
> attachment), and the behaviour is consistent with that what I was getting
> from within Mule - the first message gets consumed properly, then subsequent
> messages don't get dequeued.
> Therefore I think this may be an issue with ActiveMQ.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
