Great -- thanks for following up -- I appreciate it! - Paul
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Rafael Schloming <r...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > FYI, I filed this under PROTON-222. We should (fingers crossed) get a fix > out in upcoming 0.4 release. > > --Rafael > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Rafael Schloming <r...@alum.mit.edu> > wrote: > > > There is definitely a bug here, I was able to reproduce it locally late > > yesterday. I'm still investigating, but I'll file a JIRA today and let > you > > know what I learn. > > > > --Rafael > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Paul O'Fallon <p...@ofallonfamily.com > >wrote: > > > >> I tried your suggestion and set an outgoing window of 1 and that did in > >> fact allow me to omit the stop() after every send(). It seems that > >> whatever you are suspecting is probably right! :-) > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> - Paul > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Paul O'Fallon <p...@ofallonfamily.com > >> >wrote: > >> > >> > 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 > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
