Re: [DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the ActiveMQ project roadmap

2017-11-17 Thread Bruce Snyder
On 2017-11-15 07:59, Justin Bertram wrote: > Ultimately I believe the decision is in the hands of the ActiveMQ PMC [1]. The question you asked is a good one and something that the PMC should clarify for the user community, especially given the confusion amongst the

Re: [Artemis] Invalid keys during XA Recovery from HornetQ client

2017-11-17 Thread Justin Bertram
> Is there any possibility to define a separate connector (server or client side, does not matter in our use case) used for XA Recovery? I don't think so, but it's been awhile since I looked at that bit of code in HornetQ. I think you could disable recovery by setting false on the

Re: [Artemis] Invalid keys during XA Recovery from HornetQ client

2017-11-17 Thread Benjamin Buehlmann
The client receives the properties of the cluster connection configured on the serverside. Is there any possibility to define a separate connector (server or client side, does not matter in our use case) used for XA Recovery? Deployment and configuration of the Artemis RA on every client is the

Re: [Artemis] Invalid keys during XA Recovery from HornetQ client

2017-11-17 Thread Justin Bertram
I'd try using the Artemis JCA RA. You can build it using the /examples/features/sub-modules/artemis-ra-rar example shipped with the broker. Justin On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Benjamin Buehlmann < benjamin.buehlm...@gmail.com> wrote: > I configured a ActiveMQ Artemis 2.4.0 HA setup with

[Artemis] Invalid keys during XA Recovery from HornetQ client

2017-11-17 Thread Benjamin Buehlmann
I configured a ActiveMQ Artemis 2.4.0 HA setup with replication and a static cluster connection of the two nodes (live- and backup node). As one of the test clients I use a JBoss EAP 6.3.2 with embedded HornetQ. Every two minutes a see a Warning in the clients log that some keys are not know by

Re: Re-ordering of messages - Artemis

2017-11-17 Thread Gary Tully
It is interesting... the entire index is in memory, and I noticed a jmx operation that will swap the priority of a message, it just means moving it between priority lists in the in memory index[1]. Ordering would be more expensive by far, but by replacing the priority lists with some sort of

Re: ActiveMQ DLQ issues

2017-11-17 Thread augustl
I also got these messages when I had a network connector setup. The setup seems similar to OP, where we had a message configured to be sent via a staticallyIncludedDestinations block, and it ended up in the DLQ with "TopicSubDiscard". Here's a full dump of one of the messages that ended up in the