Hi!
Trying to set up broker redelivery, and was wondered really much on how
that interacts with the default client side redelivery.
And now I seem to know, and this was pretty strange: You get both?!
So, with setMaximumRedeliveries(2) on the broker, and without doing
anything on the client,
nt behavior is what I'd
> have expected.
>
> Tim
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022, 1:49 PM Endre Stølsvik wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > Trying to set up broker redelivery, and was wondered really much on how
> > that interacts with the default client side redelive
That's great! Tell me if there's anything needed to be done.
Kind regards,
Endre Stølsvik
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 7:24 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre
wrote:
> Hi Endre,
>
> I’m doing the review now but, yeah, it looks good enough to include it for
> 5.16.4.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
&
No chance of getting this along? https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/749
(The "firstMessageTimestamp" - I could quickly change the name if that is
wanted, to "headMessageTimestamp")
Even if a more comprehensive solution is wanted, the PRs rather small
improvement nevertheless stands on its
Hi!
Wrt. TransportConnectors: What is the general recommendation? Is NIO better
than TCP? Or the other way around? I do get the obvious points wrt. threads
- but it also depends on the implementation, and real-life experiences wrt.
throughput and latency.
Thanks a lot,
Kind regards
Endre
Hi!
Is DLQ supported for plain Topics? I can't seem to get that to work.
Also, I wonder what would happen if a topic was subscribed to by 100
consumers, and then 50 of them rolled back ("Nack'ed") the delivery?
Thanks,
Kind regards,
Endre.
ge flow, consider using Virtual
> Topics which allow pub-sub but the consumer apps read from queues instead
> of topics. Queues are much easier for developer teams to rationalize all
> the flows (error handling, etc) and Virtual Topics are easier for admins to
> be explicit w
Hi!
This regards ActiveMQ Classic.
Setting:
1. Prioritization enabled on broker with policyEntry
2. 1x consumer for "Queue" with selector "JMSPriority = 9"
3. 1x consumer for "Queue" with selector "JMSPriority <> 9"
4. Send 10k messages to "Queue" in a transaction, with default pri
I've written the following little article in conjunction with the library
Mats3, which does not exactly describe your problem, but I believe an
aspect of it might be relevant: https://mats3.io/patterns/work-queues/
The core idea there, and the aspect which might be relevant, is to not use
actual
fré
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If you are still using ActiveMQ 5.x clients, I recommend staying with
> an ActiveMQ 5.x broker.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 11:58 AM Endre Stølsvik
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> > Thanks for the release!
> >
>
Hi!
Thanks for the release!
I have a question wrt. upgrading a 50+ microservice solution: How is the
compatibility between old JMS clients (5.x) towards the 6+ server versions?
I guess the wire protocol doesn't care one bit wrt. javax./jakarta? But do
the ActiveMQ team have any suggestion wrt.
11 matches
Mail list logo