Yes, they should be received in order, but not necessarily stored/retrieved in order.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Geoff Soutter Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 5:18 PM To: Orion-Interest Subject: RE: fyi: 1.5.4 still stacks rather than queues JMS messages Hi Mike, I didn't see that comment. Unfortunately this list is so flakey that I only get about 75% of the messages. I just checked the JMS 1.02 spec, here's what it has to say about message order (in 4.4.10.1 Order of Message Receipt): "JMS defines that messages sent by a session to a destination must be received in the order in which they were sent (see Section 4.4.10.2, "Order of Message Sends," for a few qualifications)." So it seems that, contrary to what that someone said, message order _is_ important with JMS. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Cannon-Brookes Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2002 8:43 AM To: Orion-Interest Subject: Re: fyi: 1.5.4 still stacks rather than queues JMS messages Geoff, Also as someone said on this list just a few days ago - as per the JMS spec there is no guarantee that your messages turn up in the sequence you sent them. Cheers, Mike Mike Cannon-Brookes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Atlassian :: www.atlassian.com Supporting YOUR world On 16/2/02 12:55 AM, "Stephen Davidson" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words: > Geoff Soutter wrote: > >> Re the problem reported a couple weeks back by Jorge Jimenez and >> confirmed by myself, I tested 1.5.4 to see if they had fixed this >> problem, but it's still there. Just set max-instances to 1 and load >> up with a lot of messages, it works just like a stack. Doh. >> >> Maybe I'll have time to put this into Bugzilla next week... >> >> Is _everyone_ using a third party JMS with Orion? >> >> geoff >> >> >> >> > > I am using the Orion JMS, but the way the code is set up, it does not > care about the order the messages arrived. I had never noticed the > "Out of Order" issue, as it was not applicable. > > -Steve
