Abacn commented on code in PR #39253:
URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/39253#discussion_r3580462541
##########
sdks/java/io/jms/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/io/jms/JmsCheckpointMark.java:
##########
@@ -41,29 +45,32 @@ class JmsCheckpointMark implements
UnboundedSource.CheckpointMark, Serializable
private static final Logger LOG =
LoggerFactory.getLogger(JmsCheckpointMark.class);
private Instant oldestMessageTimestamp;
- private transient @Nullable Message lastMessage;
+ private transient @Nullable List<Message> messages;
private transient @Nullable MessageConsumer consumer;
private transient @Nullable Session session;
+ private transient @Nullable AtomicInteger activeCheckpoints;
private JmsCheckpointMark(
Instant oldestMessageTimestamp,
- @Nullable Message lastMessage,
+ @Nullable List<Message> messages,
@Nullable MessageConsumer consumer,
- @Nullable Session session) {
+ @Nullable Session session,
+ @Nullable AtomicInteger activeCheckpoints) {
this.oldestMessageTimestamp = oldestMessageTimestamp;
- this.lastMessage = lastMessage;
+ this.messages = messages;
this.consumer = consumer;
this.session = session;
+ this.activeCheckpoints = activeCheckpoints;
}
/** Acknowledge all outstanding message. */
@Override
public void finalizeCheckpoint() {
try {
- // Jms spec will implicitly acknowledge _all_ messaged already received
by the same
- // session if one message in this session is being acknowledged.
- if (lastMessage != null) {
- lastMessage.acknowledge();
+ if (messages != null) {
+ for (Message message : messages) {
+ message.acknowledge();
Review Comment:
> My understanding is that finalizeCheckpoint() may be called on a different
thread from the reader on some runners.
Correct
> does message.acknowledge() here running concurrently with the reader's
receive loop on the same Session
No for `INDIVIDUAL_ACKNOWLEDGE ` and `CLIENT_ACKNOWLEDGE_UNSAFE`. That's why
the latter is "unsafe". The former isn't part of Jms spec but some providers'
extended feature.
> Could you confirm how ack is serialized against receive for the other two
modes, or which providers this has been validated against?
The integration tests now covers this question, tested on ActiveMQ and Amqp
provider.
> `CLIENT_ACKNOWLEDGE` looks immune since each mark owns a private session
Yes
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
