[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-8405?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17024244#comment-17024244
]
Robert Godfrey commented on QPID-8405:
--------------------------------------
bq. I see. So much for standards and their specifications...
:-) I will make the excuse that that "definition" was made before I, or the
Rabbit folks, got involved in the spec writing. For AMQP 1.0 we tried to do a
better job of making sure things were defined without ambiguity - though even
there we have found we were ultimately far from perfect.
bq. Another suggestion would be to issue a warning if the expiration is way in
the past (e.g. 60,000 in our case). We were using the RabbitMQ client and QPid
as the broker and there are no signs whatsoever that something is going wrong
except that messages simply don't arrive at consumers. After some time you see
a "message discarded" log entry from QPid but that is long after it has been
submitted and in some cases also more or less matched the desired TTL.
Well, one thing you can do in Qpid is set a minimum message TTL on a Queue - so
if you set the "minimumMessageTtl" attribute on the queue to 10000 (ms) then
any message sent to the queue with an expiration "in the past" will be treated
as having a 10 second TTL.
> Per-message expiration is treated wrong for AMQP 0-9-1
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: QPID-8405
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-8405
> Project: Qpid
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Broker-J
> Affects Versions: qpid-java-broker-7.1.7
> Reporter: Thorsten Meinl
> Priority: Major
>
> We are using QPid with AMQP 0-9-1 support as an embedded alternative to
> RabbitMQ. RabbitMQ has extended the 0-9-1 specification with [per-message
> TTLs|https://www.rabbitmq.com/ttl.html#per-message-ttl]. The documentation
> states that the value of the {{expiration}} header is the time-to-live in
> milliseconds. However, when we set an expiration of 60,000 when sending a
> message to QPid this message gets discarded immediately and is not delivered
> to any consumer. I had a look at the code and the bug is obvious: instead of
> treating the {{expiration}} header as a TTL it is treated as an absolute
> expiration timestamp, see
> {{org.apache.qpid.server.queue.QueueEntryImpl.expired()}}. Either QPid
> shouldn't support expiration at all for AMPQ 0-9-1 since it's not part of the
> standard or it should follow the RabbitMQ implementation since I assume it
> was introduced by them.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
