Thanks for the reply! To your first question -- I haven't created a special test case for this, but it is in my code here:
https://github.com/pofallon/node-qpid/blob/master/src/messenger.cc#L168-L177 (I'm in the early stages of writing node.js bindings to proton-c's Messenger API) This code calls put, start, send and stop for each message (and will send the message). If I comment out the "stop" on line 177 the messages are not sent. (To see how this is invoked via node.js, see: https://github.com/pofallon/node-qpid/blob/master/test/test.js#L18) To your second question, my end goal is "yes" to share it between threads. Today my "Messenger" javascript object uses two pn_messenger instances -- one to send and another to receive. However, I'd like to collapse that into one instance for both sending and receiving (across multiple threads). Thanks again! - Paul On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Rafael Schloming <r...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Paul O'Fallon <p...@ofallonfamily.com > >wrote: > > > Hello! I'm new to proton (and AMQP), and have some questions about using > > the Messenger API in the C library to send messages to Windows Azure. > I've > > noticed that it takes three steps before a message is actually sent (i.e. > > before it is fetched when running the 'recv' command line example). I > call > > pn_messenger_put(), pn_messenger_send(), and then pn_messenger_stop(). > My > > question is about the third call -- to pn_messenger_stop(). If I omit > that > > and just call the first two, the message is not actually sent. > > > > My concern is whether calling stop() after every send will be a problem > in > > the case where I want to use the same instance of messenger to call > recv() > > in a separate thread. The API docs state "A messenger cannot send or > recv > > messages when it is stopped.". > > > > So, two questions: > > > > (1) Is the need to call stop() after each send() expected behavior? > > > > I wouldn't expect that you need to call stop() after each send(), however > you should call it before exiting the program. Do you have a code fragment > you could post that reproduces the behaviour you're seeing? It sounds like > it could be a bug, if it is what I suspect you could try working around it > by setting a positive outgoing window. > > > > (2) Will repeatedly calling stop() affect the recv() running in the > > separate thread? > > > > Are you sharing a single messenger between the two threads? > > --Rafael >
