Re: [Qpid Java Broker] Remove alternate exchange

It worked like a charm. Thanks. Vavricka -- View this message in context: http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Qpid-Java-Broker-Remove-alternate-exchange-tp7660147p7660212.html Sent from the Apache Qpid users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[Qpid Java Broker] ensure nondestructive via UI

Is there a way via the web management ui to create a queue that ensures clients are nondestructive? I see the rest interface but don't know if there is a way I can use qpid.ensure_nondestructive_consumers argument somehow via context variables. If it's possible via the web UI then my ops team

Re: [DISCUSS] release checksum filename extension

Thats probably where the key difference lies - I dont have the general shasum, only specific sha[1|224|256|384|512]sum variants that do complain when given the 'wrong' thing. I'm long overdue an update to an up to date OS so that probably explains that. It makes sense they should be able to look

Re: [DISCUSS] release checksum filename extension

I will change the qpid-python .sha file to SHA-512. And I wouldn't have objected to using .sha512 if Robbie had felt like going against the grain. FWIW, before I made the change to SHA-256 and .sha, I tested that Fedora's 'shasum' does not require extra options to check such files. It seems to

[VOTE] Release Apache Qpid Proton-J 0.18.0

Hi folks, I have put together a first spin for a Qpid Proton-J 0.18.0 release, please test it and vote accordingly. The source and binary archives can be grabbed from: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/qpid/proton-j/0.18.0-rc1/ (Note: the .sha checksum files are generated using SHA512)

Re: [DISCUSS] release checksum filename extension

To be fair that page says nothing about how to name SHA256 checksums :-), only that we SHOULD be creating SHA512 checksums named .sha. So, I'm +1 on naming the SHA256 .sha256 ... and it seems like the Python release really shouldn't name a SHA256 file .sha as by the above that extension should be

Re: [DISCUSS] release checksum filename extension

On 03/07/2017 12:23 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: According to http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution.html#sigs-and-sums .sha is actually required: "An SHA checksum SHOULD also be created and MUST be suffixed .sha. The checksum SHOULD be generated using SHA512." I find the extension a

Re: pn_delivery_finalize Assertion failure

Here's the corresponding debug output from when the problem does not happen: (imp_server@ubuntu)1> [0x2b8a60030360]:1 <- @transfer(20) [handle=1, delivery-id=0, delivery-tag=b":,\xfa\x02\xad\xc5\x8cN\x8f\xafip\xbb\x97B\xfe", message-format=0, more=false, batchable=false] (227)

Re: [DISCUSS] release checksum filename extension

According to http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution.html#sigs-and-sums .sha is actually required: "An SHA checksum SHOULD also be created and MUST be suffixed .sha. The checksum SHOULD be generated using SHA512." I find the extension a little unhelpful personally, but ok.. :) Robbie On

Re: pn_delivery_finalize Assertion failure

Here's some debug output from when the problem happens - In this case one of the assertions triggers, but that is not always the case: (imp_server@ubuntu)1> [0x2b8bd80026b0]:1 <- @transfer(20) [handle=1, delivery-id=0, delivery-tag=b"X\x00\xd2\xebX\x82\x0eO\x92\x08\x87\x92[i\xc6\xbd",

[DISCUSS] release checksum filename extension

Hi folks, I noted in the qpid-python-1.36.0 vote thread that the .sha file contained a sha256 checksum, this being in place of the historic .sha1 checksum file. I'm curious what people think about the name relative to the contents? I think .sha256 might be friendlier so that people know how to

Re: pn_delivery_finalize Assertion failure

In engine.c, the function pn_delivery_settle(pn_delivery_t *delivery) has the following: pn_incref(delivery); pn_decref(delivery); Is there a reason for this? -- View this message in context: http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/pn-delivery-finalize-Assertion-failure-tp7660170p7660172.html

Re: pn_delivery_finalize Assertion failure

Oh I also see delivery->local.settled as true when the problem happens, but it is false when the problem does not happen. Thanks, Toby -- View this message in context: http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/pn-delivery-finalize-Assertion-failure-tp7660170p7660171.html Sent from the Apache

pn_delivery_finalize Assertion failure

Hello, I'm using qpid-proton 0-12.2 in 'connection_engine' mode. Very occasionally I'm getting errors in the function pn_delivery_finalize (engine.c) - I've been trying to work out what's going wrong here, but the call pattern is pretty tricky to work out (partly due to the use of macros to

Re: synchronous sending - using javax.jms.MessageProducer::send

On 7 March 2017 at 16:53, Vince Cole wrote: > Hi Rob > > I guess I'm a bit confused too. > > I need to use JMS and AMQP 1.0, thought I was using the correct > dependencies, as underneath they use proton-j, but now I'm not so sure. > > qpid-amqp-1-0-client-jms is an

Re: synchronous sending - using javax.jms.MessageProducer::send

The current AMQP 1.0 JMS client, qpid-jms-client, does use proton-j. The older qpid-amqp-1-0-client-jms does not use proton. If you are using maven, look at http://qpid.apache.org/maven.html for the current dependency detail. The current release is 0.20.0, and 0.21.0 should enter the release

Re: synchronous sending - using javax.jms.MessageProducer::send

On 7 March 2017 at 15:57, Vince Cole wrote: > Hi Tim > > Thanks > > I now see that my client should be setting *jms.forceSyncSend=true* > (although the ActiveMQ documentation has it as *jms.alwaysSyncSend=true*, so > I am setting both) option in the connection URI. Dont

Re: synchronous sending - using javax.jms.MessageProducer::send

Hi Tim Thanks I now see that my client should be setting *jms.forceSyncSend=true* (although the ActiveMQ documentation has it as *jms.alwaysSyncSend=true*, so I am setting both) option in the connection URI. However, it is still operating asynchronously. I forgot to mention that I am using

Re: synchronous sending - using javax.jms.MessageProducer::send

Hi Rob I guess I'm a bit confused too. I need to use JMS and AMQP 1.0, thought I was using the correct dependencies, as underneath they use proton-j, but now I'm not so sure. I'll see what happens if I pull either of the client libraries out... -- View this message in context:

synchronous sending - using javax.jms.MessageProducer::send

I have a requirement to for my JMS client to block, and only return once the message has been accepted onto the specified queue or topic. If the message is not accepted, then an exception should be thrown. We don't care whether anything actually consumes the message. However, my client can only

Re: [Qpid Java Broker] Remove alternate exchange

On 7 March 2017 at 14:25, Vavricka wrote: > Hi, > > I have two exchanges with alternate exchange set to the other exchange. > > Below are the two exchanges in following format exchange> > > broadcast,broadcast_resend > broadcast_resend,broadcast > > I am

Re: synchronous sending - using javax.jms.MessageProducer::send

Hi Vince, On 7 March 2017 at 15:21, Vince Cole wrote: > > > I am using: > * javax.jms : javax.jms-api : 2.0.1 > * org.apache.qpid : qpid-jms-client : 0.11.1 > * org.apache.qpid : qpid-amqp-1-0-client-jms : 0.32 > I'm a bit confused by this: qpid-jms-client and

Re: synchronous sending - using javax.jms.MessageProducer::send

On 03/07/2017 09:21 AM, Vince Cole wrote: I have a requirement to for my JMS client to block, and only return once the message has been accepted onto the specified queue or topic. If the message is not accepted, then an exception should be thrown. We don't care whether anything actually consumes

synchronous sending - using javax.jms.MessageProducer::send

I have a requirement to for my JMS client to block, and only return once the message has been accepted onto the specified queue or topic. If the message is not accepted, then an exception should be thrown. We don't care whether anything actually consumes the message. However, my client can only

[Qpid Java Broker] Remove alternate exchange

Hi, I have two exchanges with alternate exchange set to the other exchange. Below are the two exchanges in following format broadcast,broadcast_resend broadcast_resend,broadcast I am trying to remove exchange by REST API. When I tried to remove exchange 'broadcast' Java Broker

Re: Accessing queues with '/' in name in Rest API [qpid java broker 6.0.4]

Hi Antoine, > Do you know if the broker federation is planned for v7? No - it won't be included in v7. Federation is a feature we'd would like to add in the medium term - but it requires the improved AMQP 1.0 support (which will be included in v7) as a building block. I would anticipate that