Re: how to enable persistent message store?

http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/file/n4332902/test_s.php test_s.php http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/file/n4332902/activemq.xml activemq.xml Here is my script at php and activemq.xml config file. to run at php to send message i do php test_s.php send, to read what can be read php

Sql Server for master slave

Hi, I want to use SQL Server 2008 for Master/Slave configuration. However it is not allowing to have database locks with exception as below : ERROR | Failed to acquire lock: com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerException: A processing error Line 1: FOR UPDATE clause allowed only for DECLARE

Re: producer flow control questions

I dont know why, but If I set fileCursor and to a topic my broker starts to consume memory untill hungs with java heap size limit... fileCursor should not avoid this? 2012/1/27 Oscar Pernas os...@pernas.es Hi all, Im trying to optimize and hardening activemq and I have some question: - If I

Re: how to enable persistent message store?

Hi, expiration and persistence are something different. A persistent message can still expire, a non-expiring message can still be non-persistent. The difference is: if a message is persistent, it will be available even if the broker restarts, if a message has an expiration, it will be deleted

Re: how to enable persistent message store?

Thank you! i was try it before, but it was not working. To whom it can be interested correction is to submit 'true' as string at php, not as boolean value. So headers will look like $headers = array('persistent' = 'true'); not $headers = array('persistent' = true); May be that will safe time to

Re: producer flow control questions

Hi, sorry for the spam: I have the following configuration destinationPolicy policyMap policyEntries policyEntry topic= producerFlowControl=false pendingDurableSubscriberPolicy fileDurableSubscriberCursor/ /pendingDurableSubscriberPolicy

RE: ActiveMQ 5.4.1: weird behaviour

Hi, well I tried this in the past too :-(. But upgrading was the only successful solution. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-5-4-1-weird-behaviour-tp4312895p4333256.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: storeUsage not working

thanks for sharing your solution -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/storeUsage-not-working-tp4314236p4333264.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Does a persistent message stay (keep) on the broker forever ?

There is a little write up on the detlail of kahadb gc at: http://activemq.apache.org/why-do-kahadb-log-files-remain-after-cleanup.html On 26 January 2012 23:38, ceposta christian.po...@gmail.com wrote: Abimael, Just to follow up on what Matt said, the messages in the log files will only be

Re: producer flow control questions

Oscar- What is your Java heap size? On 1/27/12 5:29 AM, Oscar Pernas wrote: Hi, sorry for the spam: I have the following configuration destinationPolicy policyMap policyEntries policyEntry topic= producerFlowControl=false

Re: How to specify an id attribute in the activemq-broker.xml in Blueprint format ?

Hello, Here is more information. It looks like beans defined in XBeans are not created the same as beans defined in Blueprint. Here is the BeanRecipe for a XBean-defined bean : name : .component-3 properties {id=myID} Here is the BeanRecipe for a Blueprint-defined bean : name : myID

Re: Which is better: new queue or selector

Chris- Separate queues is a good approach. Additionally, it doesn't sound like you need to do a network of brokers here. Stand-alone brokers and a simple Camel route running inside the producer broker could handle the content-based router requirement where you want messages sent to a

Re: Which is better: new queue or selector

Thanks for the quick response. The content-based router seems to be good for messages going only one way. However, in this scenario, when the messages go out, the enumeration services need to reply to them at a designated temp queue (at least that is my understanding of the request/reply model in

Store Forward issues under STOMP

Hi, i'm currently using ActiveMQ 5.4.2 running into an issue with a store and forward configuration for a distributed STOMP queue. Trying to figure out if this is a bug in my configuration, expected behavior in activemq or something else... So I have 2 brokers - a local broker (stagingapp1), and

Re: Which is better: new queue or selector

Sorry, I must have glazed over the request-reply requirement. You can still do it with a Camel route, you don't want to use Camel's default request-reply behavior, which assumes one hop. - Portal Producing Broker (set ReplyTo) - Camel route Content Based Router (ignore ReplyTo) - Destination