Re: Program hangs if wrong broker port is used

ng? >You are using failover so the client is attempting to reconnect, since >the port is wrong it never will obviously so giving it the correct port >is the way to go. > >On 08/15/2016 08:34 AM, spamtrap wrote: >> If the wrong port is given when trying to connect to a broker th

Program hangs if wrong broker port is used

If the wrong port is given when trying to connect to a broker then we get a hanging problem. The stack backtrace is: #0 0x7f0ca3837a82 in pthread_cond_timedwait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from /usr/lib64/libpthread.so.0 (gdb) bt #0 0x7f0ca3837a82 in pthread_cond_timedwait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from

Re: ActiveMQ-CPP Exception connecting to broker

ch initiated the closedown may end up in a TIME_WAIT state. In this case it should be client rather than the server IMHO. If this was the situation then I would not see this problem. >On Mar 11, 2016 4:55 AM, "spamtrap" <nospam.1.friedbad...@spamgourmet.com> >wrote: >

Re: ActiveMQ-CPP Exception connecting to broker

t to use fewer sockets (e.g, batching messages) > >This might be helpful to read: http://www.sean.de/Solaris/soltune.html Thanks - I'll read this. >Anyway, this is just a theory based on the error message, it may very well >be some other problem. > >On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:55

Re: ActiveMQ-CPP Exception connecting to broker

might be logged as an >"address in use" error. > >Jim > > >On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:07 AM Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 03/10/2016 10:37 AM, spamtrap wrote: >> > [ActiveMQ-CPP v3.9.0] >> > >> > We have a

ActiveMQ-CPP Exception connecting to broker

[ActiveMQ-CPP v3.9.0] We have a c++ program which connects to a broker, sends a message to a topic and then closes the connections & exits. Every now and then it fails to connect reporting a "Address already in use" exception (based on ex.what()). The code is like this: - cut -- try

Re: ActiveMQ-CPP 3.9.0 does not build on Solaris 11

On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:18:41 +, spam trap <nospam.1.friedbad...@spamgourmet.com> wrote: >On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:41:56 -0500, Timothy Bish ><tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On 01/07/2016 09:20 AM, spamtrap wrote: >>> Environment: Solaris 11 (spar

ActiveMQ-CPP 3.9.0 does not build on Solaris 11

Environment: Solaris 11 (sparc) Compiler: Solaris Studio 12.3 CFLAGS="-xarch=generic64" CXXFLAGS="-xarch=generic64" Configure options: ./configure '--disable-ssl' '--prefix=' '--with-apr=' CC: -library=Cstd cannot be used with -library=stlport4 [Removing -library=Cstd -library=Crun from the

Re: Possible memory leak with ActiveMQ-CPP

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:30:51 -0500, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11/27/2015 03:38 AM, spam trap wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:03:35 -0500, Timothy Bish >> <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 11/26/2015 08:24 AM, spamtrap wrot

Re: Possible memory leak with ActiveMQ-CPP

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:39:53 -0500, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11/25/2015 11:29 AM, spamtrap wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:07:53 -0500, Timothy Bish >> <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 11/25/2015 10:50 AM, spamtrap wrot

Re: Possible memory leak with ActiveMQ-CPP

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:06:15 -0500, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11/26/2015 03:07 AM, spamtrap wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:39:53 -0500, Timothy Bish >> <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 11/25/2015 11:29 AM, spamtrap wrot

Re: Possible memory leak with ActiveMQ-CPP

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:33:38 -0500, Timothy Bish wrote: >On 11/25/2015 05:47 AM, spam trap wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have the following code: >> >> cms::Message *pMessage; >> ... >> std::vector propertyNames = pMessage->getPropertyNames(); >> >> According to valgrind this leaks

Re: Possible memory leak with ActiveMQ-CPP

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:07:53 -0500, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11/25/2015 10:50 AM, spamtrap wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:33:38 -0500, Timothy Bish >> <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 11/25/2015 05:47 AM, spam trap wrote: &g

Re: AMQ CPP Consumer Receive() and receiveNoWait() does not return

On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 11:08:29 -0800 (PST), JackOfAllTrades wrote: >All I can do at the moment > > > >auto_ptr factory( new ActiveMQConectionFactory >(MY_BROKER_URL)); > >cms::Connection* conxn=null; >conxn=factory->CreatConnection(); > >auto_ptr

Re: AMQ CPP Consumer Receive() and receiveNoWait() does not return

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 07:21:19 -0700 (PDT), JackOfAllTrades wrote: >I'm trying to update to AMQ CPP 3.9.0. > >The calls to the consumer receive() and receiveNoWait() will not return. >There are messages available on the queue. Older version 2.4.4 worked. > >Anybody have any

Cannot browse messages with JConsole

[ActiveMQ 5.11.1] If I try to browse an ActiveMQ queue which contains one or more messages with JConsole I get the following error message: "Problem invoking browseMessages: java.rmi.UnmarshalException: error unmarshalling return; nested exception is: java.io.WriteAbortedException: writing

Re: Can we achive message priority with parallel processing with single Queue

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 05:02:36 -0700 (PDT), skrish018c wrote: >Wanted to know if there is any possibility to achieve parallel processing >with message priority with single queue. Is there any supporting document? Are you trying to get different consumers to process

Re: Program blocking waiting for a lock

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:34:17 +0100, spamtrap <nospam.1.friedbad...@spamgourmet.com> wrote: >ActiveMQ-CPP 3.9.0 > >A program is blocking waiting for a lock: > >#0 0x00367980b5bc in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () > from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 >#1 0x000

Re: Program blocking waiting for a lock

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:49:51 -0400, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/09/2015 10:37 AM, spamtrap wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:34:17 +0100, spamtrap >> <nospam.1.friedbad...@spamgourmet.com> wrote: >> >>> ActiveMQ-CPP 3.9.0 >&g

Re: Program blocking waiting for a lock

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:03:10 -0400, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/09/2015 10:56 AM, spamtrap wrote: >> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:49:51 -0400, Timothy Bish >> <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/09/2015 10:37 AM, spamtrap wrote: >>

Re: ActiveMQ-CPP message priority

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:01:15 -0400, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 09/25/2015 11:44 AM, spamtrap wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:34:56 -0400, Timothy Bish >> <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 09/25/2015 11:29 AM, spamtrap wrote: >

ActiveMQ-CPP message priority

If you set the message priority with cms::Message::setPriority() and then send the message with cms::MessageProducer::send() then the priority of the message is ignored and the message is sent with the default priority of the MessageProducer. This seems like a bug to me.

Returning prefectched messages to the broker

ActiveMQ-CPP I need to, in some cases, return prefetched messages to the broker. At present I do the following: - rollback the session - stop the consumer - close the consumer - delete the consumer - stop the session - delete the session - delete the destination But the messages remain

Message Priority - consuming

Is it possible for a consumer to only consume messages above a certain priority, rather than just get them in priority order? Is so how can this be done? I am using ActiveMQ-CPP - latest version.

Re: ActiveMq-CPP question

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:31:56 -0400, Timothy Bish tabish...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/27/2015 04:40 AM, spamtrap wrote: When I call the cms:Message acknowledge() method I get the message Pointer operator- - Pointee is NULL. printed to stdout/err. How can I avoid this? There isn't enough info

ActiveMq-CPP question

When I call the cms:Message acknowledge() method I get the message Pointer operator- - Pointee is NULL. printed to stdout/err. How can I avoid this?

Re: Allowing another consumer to have a message (ActiveMQ-CPP)

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:01:16 -0600, Tim Bain tb...@alumni.duke.edu wrote: Confirm that step by step. Are the messages still on the broker when the transaction rolls back? Are they still on the broker when the client disconnects? Wherever you lose them, the previous step is the one to

Re: Allowing another consumer to have a message (ActiveMQ-CPP)

the session starts). Does restarting the session mean creating a new session object, or calling start() on the current one after calling stop()? Is the behavior the same if you do it the other way? On Jun 12, 2015 4:30 AM, spamtrap nospam.1.friedbad...@spamgourmet.com wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:01

Re: Allowing another consumer to have a message (ActiveMQ-CPP)

messages can be redelivered. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:51 AM, spamtrap nospam.1.friedbad...@spamgourmet.com wrote: On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 07:29:16 -0600, Tim Bain tb...@alumni.duke.edu wrote: So why can't you use transactions? Won't you get what you want if you commit the transaction after

Re: Allowing another consumer to have a message (ActiveMQ-CPP)

that the web service is available again. We have to assume it may fail to respond to certain messages. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:09 AM, spamtrap nospam.1.friedbad...@spamgourmet.com wrote: On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 06:43:45 -0600, Tim Bain tb...@alumni.duke.edu wrote: The situation