On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Ard Schrijvers<[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Dirkjan van > Diepen<[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Reinier, >> >> When a batch of JMS events are received, not all JMs events are guaranteed >> to be processed. When the time to process the events take too long, there is >> a possibility that events, that are received in the mean time, will be lost >> before it's being processed. You have to make sure that the processing of >> the event takes as less time as possible. > > Are,you sure about this? This sounds really strange to me, and also, > fortunately, I am pretty confident this is not the case. Afaik, a > synchronized method is responsible for evicting cached items, where, > even if it takes long, which is unlikely, no jms event ever would and > should be lost.
Bart just told me explanation by Dirk is actually correct. I must say it surprises me quite a bit :-) Bart explained me that using the persistent queue for jms works the way I would expect it to work. Next to this, my explanation wrt delete/update within one indexing cycle still holds. Regards Ard > > ******************************************** Hippocms-dev: Hippo CMS development public mailinglist Searchable archives can be found at: MarkMail: http://hippocms-dev.markmail.org Nabble: http://www.nabble.com/Hippo-CMS-f26633.html
