RE: Should we add large String value support in MapMessage in 4.0.2 ?? re: AMQ-788
Can we set message timeout in a stomp client in the situations where STOMP client is trying to send a message and because of network issues (FIREWALL or something else) it cant not reach to the AMQ server. So instead of trying to send the message indefinitely STOMP client process will terminate. Thanks! Vik -Original Message- From: James Strachan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 1:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Should we add large String value support in MapMessage in 4.0.2 ?? re: AMQ-788 Great! Must be nearly time to cut a 4.0.2 release :) On 7/14/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok. look like there was not too much opposition to backporting this so.. > I'll go ahead and do it later today. > > On 7/11/06, Rob Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > +1 - sounds good to me > > On 11 Jul 2006, at 16:42, Hiram Chirino wrote: > > > > > Hi Folks. > > > > > > In 4.1 we added a patch that add support of handling large string > > > values ( > > > > 32k ) in map messages. See: > > > http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-788 > > > > > > I just wanted to see if you guys think we should backport that to > > > 4.0.2also? > > > > > > The only down side is that a slight incompatibility in marshaling is > > > introduced. It only affect messages that use string values > 8k. > > > With the > > > patch once a string value is > 8k, we now use a different marshaling > > > strategy that allow for marshaling String values up to 2 gigs. So > > > if you > > > have <= 4.0.1 clients talking to 4.0.2 clients sending map messages > > > with > > > String values > 8k then the <= 4.0.1 clients may not be able handle > > > the > > > messages from the 4.0.2 clients. > > > > > > I think it's safe enough to add since we did not support large > > > messages > > > anyways in 4.0.1. > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Hiram > > > > > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > Hiram > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com > > -- James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: Should we add large String value support in MapMessage in 4.0.2 ?? re: AMQ-788
Great! Must be nearly time to cut a 4.0.2 release :) On 7/14/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok. look like there was not too much opposition to backporting this so.. I'll go ahead and do it later today. On 7/11/06, Rob Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 - sounds good to me > On 11 Jul 2006, at 16:42, Hiram Chirino wrote: > > > Hi Folks. > > > > In 4.1 we added a patch that add support of handling large string > > values ( > > > 32k ) in map messages. See: > > http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-788 > > > > I just wanted to see if you guys think we should backport that to > > 4.0.2also? > > > > The only down side is that a slight incompatibility in marshaling is > > introduced. It only affect messages that use string values > 8k. > > With the > > patch once a string value is > 8k, we now use a different marshaling > > strategy that allow for marshaling String values up to 2 gigs. So > > if you > > have <= 4.0.1 clients talking to 4.0.2 clients sending map messages > > with > > String values > 8k then the <= 4.0.1 clients may not be able handle > > the > > messages from the 4.0.2 clients. > > > > I think it's safe enough to add since we did not support large > > messages > > anyways in 4.0.1. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Hiram > > > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com > > -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com -- James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: Should we add large String value support in MapMessage in 4.0.2 ?? re: AMQ-788
Ok. look like there was not too much opposition to backporting this so.. I'll go ahead and do it later today. On 7/11/06, Rob Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 - sounds good to me On 11 Jul 2006, at 16:42, Hiram Chirino wrote: > Hi Folks. > > In 4.1 we added a patch that add support of handling large string > values ( > > 32k ) in map messages. See: > http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-788 > > I just wanted to see if you guys think we should backport that to > 4.0.2also? > > The only down side is that a slight incompatibility in marshaling is > introduced. It only affect messages that use string values > 8k. > With the > patch once a string value is > 8k, we now use a different marshaling > strategy that allow for marshaling String values up to 2 gigs. So > if you > have <= 4.0.1 clients talking to 4.0.2 clients sending map messages > with > String values > 8k then the <= 4.0.1 clients may not be able handle > the > messages from the 4.0.2 clients. > > I think it's safe enough to add since we did not support large > messages > anyways in 4.0.1. > > -- > Regards, > Hiram > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Should we add large String value support in MapMessage in 4.0.2 ?? re: AMQ-788
+1 - sounds good to me On 11 Jul 2006, at 16:42, Hiram Chirino wrote: Hi Folks. In 4.1 we added a patch that add support of handling large string values ( > 32k ) in map messages. See: http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-788 I just wanted to see if you guys think we should backport that to 4.0.2also? The only down side is that a slight incompatibility in marshaling is introduced. It only affect messages that use string values > 8k. With the patch once a string value is > 8k, we now use a different marshaling strategy that allow for marshaling String values up to 2 gigs. So if you have <= 4.0.1 clients talking to 4.0.2 clients sending map messages with String values > 8k then the <= 4.0.1 clients may not be able handle the messages from the 4.0.2 clients. I think it's safe enough to add since we did not support large messages anyways in 4.0.1. -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
