Hi Rob
We have the following topology:
* Publisher -> Dispatcher -> Broker1 or Broker 2 (Java) -> Dispatcher (same
instance) -> Consumer
* each Broker is configured (before the run)
- with an exchange perf.topic (amqp topic)
- with a queue (perf.queue) that has a binding (binding key + header ba
Ted,
yes. this is as you describe
the queue that fills up is the "UUID name" queue (created by the Dispatch
Router ).
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Olivier Mallassi wrote:
> Hi Rob
>
> We have the following topology:
>
> * Publisher -> Dispatcher -> Broker1 o
We need to run the tests again but you are right. Looking at the Dispatch
Router config, the links are in and out.
thx.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
>
>
> On 07/08/2016 11:42 AM, Olivier Mallassi wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob
>>
>> We have the followi
We may be able to use load balancer like HAProxy (level 4)
But retry has to be handled; maybe proton-c provide something.
On Friday, 16 September 2016, wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
> Does the Proton C++ API support the failover url just like JMS does?
>
> If no, what workarounds could I use?
>
>
> Re
Rob, all
Thank you rob for this. Could you please share more details regarding not
using the "/"?
On our side we are using amqp 1.0 that, AFAIU, promotes the "complex"
addressing plans
The benefit for us would be
- alignements between our http and amqp naming conventions. It is a nice to
have but
To complement and certainly explain the need, We would like urls like
amqp://ip:port/domain/subdomain1/queueA or
amqp://ip:port/domain/subdomain2/queueB
+ use routing capabilities to route queueA, queueB on different brokers or
even queueA to brokers and queueB to another dispatch-router (e.g. for
Hi Ganesh
here it is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-734
I will try to do more tests.
Thx.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Ganesh Murthy wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Olivier Mallassi"
> > To: users@qpid.apache.org
> > > X, then if X contains a / it looks to see if the part before the / is
> > > an exchange name, and if so it sends to that exchange with the part
> > > after the / being used as the routing key.
> > >
> > > When the Java Broker receives a request to
in/queue1", durable=0,
timeout=0, dynamic=false, capabilities=@PN_SYMBOL[:queue]],
initial-delivery-count=0]
I also tried adding two "/" (e.g. //domain/subdomain) but in that case the
"domain" disappear from the destination name (in qdmanage).
Do I have to use the vhost (t
e client is not populating host, and so both your connections are being
> made to the "default" virtual host.
>
> -- Rob
>
> On 5 April 2017 at 11:14, Olivier Mallassi
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > quickly test it on the 0.7.0-snapshot and it works l
ted:list",
> :"amqp:rejected:list", :"amqp:released:list", :"amqp:modified:list"]],
> target=@target(41) [address="/domain/subdomain/queue1", durable=0,
> timeout=0, dynamic=false, capabilities=@PN_SYMBOL[:queue]],
> initial-delivery-count=0]
>
>
oth cases, the Link between the dispatch router & the broker cannot be
established (just after I see a @detach frame)
Is my understanding correct?
Is the removal of //domain the expected behavior? could we imagine having
something similar to the python example above? hence, the address
normal
I hope the colored text will work.
cf. below
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Alan Conway wrote:
> I jumped into the middle of this, sorry for irrelevant answers.
>
> Short story: I agree with you.
> Long story:
>
> On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 23:38 +0200, Olivier Mallassi wrot
7 at 17:38, Alan Conway wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 17:08 +0200, Olivier Mallassi wrote:
> >
> > I am fine with the "//" as long as it is not considered as connection
> > information :)
> >
>
> Random thought: have you tried "addr" in
Looks like the dispatch router is also normalizing incoming Adress
(independently of the number of /// by the way ;) )
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Olivier Mallassi <
olivier.malla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Crafty :)
>
> I have just ran quick tests and it helps establishing the link
17 at 5:36 PM, Ganesh Murthy wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -----
> > From: "Olivier Mallassi"
> > To: "Alan Conway"
> > Cc: "Rob Godfrey" , gmur...@redhat.com,
> users@qpid.apache.org
> > Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 8:04:
Gentleman,
I will need your help.
I have a use case where I would like to guarantee "consumer affinity",
which is usually implemented using the JMSXGroupID (actually, I am sure it
was working w/ AMQP 0.10 clients but here I am using AMQP 1.0)
My test does the "classical" case:
for (i ... i < 100
>> consumer. Each broker will do this independently. So if you have two
> >> brokers B1 and B2; and two consumers C1 and C2 and message M of group A
> >> arrives on B1 whereas message N of group A arrives on B2; then B1 may
> >> decide to associate group A with C1 whereas
Hi Olivier
AFAIR, I looked at the code at the UI console a couple of months ago and
the throughput per queues / exchange is calculated with a diff between
total messages every sec.
This is done in the Js
I guess that should answer your need
Olivier.
On Thu 1 Feb 2018 at 11:34, Olivier VERMEULE
Hi all
my apologies in advance if I ask dummy questions and for this (maybe too)
long email but *i need some help in regards with "qpid clustering"*.
I have read some of the already asked questions on the ML and would like to
confirm (or not) some points.
*Overview*:
I wanna use the Java Broker (
sses and connections)
PS : for the record, we will also "functionally partitioned" : event of
type A goes to broker A (eg. a dedicated JVM), event of type B goes to
broker B
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Rob Godfrey
wrote:
> On 20 May 2015 at 12:00, Olivier Mallassi
> wrote
Hello all
a question regarding message grouping.
In my case, I use .x-declare: {arguments:
{'qpid.group_header_key':'JMSXGroupID', 'qpid.shared_msg_group':0
so, looking at the doc (
https://qpid.apache.org/releases/qpid-0.32/java-broker/book/Java-Broker-Management-Managing-Queues.html
)
2015 at 19:41, Olivier Mallassi
> wrote:
> > Hello all
> >
> > a question regarding message grouping.
> >
> > In my case, I use .x-declare: {arguments:
> > {'qpid.group_header_key':'JMSXGroupID', 'qpid.shared_msg_group':0
>
hello all
I was wondering if qpid dispatch was supporting trnasaction. in fact the
pattern I would need to implement is the following (a classic one)
Publisher (java/c++)
beginTransaction > insert rdbms > publish msg > commit
the amqp infra would be dispatch + java qpid broker.
I assume it work
ransactions? We plan to add local transactions
>>> (client-to-broker, or endpoint-to-endpoint) in the near future but
>>> distributed transactions will take longer.
>>>
>>> -Ted
>>>
>>> On 12/01/2015 06:52 PM, Olivier Mallassi wrote:
&
Hello all
I am beginning to figure out how the JMS & AMQP specs. yet I am facing a
copule of questions:
*1/ competing & non competing consumers: *
using amqp 0.10 and Jms destinations, I was able to publish my events on
amq.topic/x.y.z
and then to consume these events from different subscription
Thanks Ted.
I have found this
https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/blob/master/docs/markdown/messenger/addressing-and-routing.md
may be useful.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
>
> On 12/03/2015 09:20 AM, Olivier Mallassi wrote:
>
>> gentlemen, thank you f
@Robbie, thank you for clarification
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
> On 4 December 2015 at 19:09, Olivier Mallassi
> wrote:
> > Hello all
> >
> > I am beginning to figure out how the JMS & AMQP specs. yet I am facing a
> > copule o
Hello everybody,
I am facing an issue while (attempting to connect the router and a java
broker)
- I have a JMS client *successfully* publishing to the Java broker (AMQP
1.0) w/ the following url
env.put("connectionfactory.qpidConnectionfactory", "amqp://
192.168.56.103:1?clientid=test-clien
> etc/log4j.xml file at level DEBUG. If you are testing the 6.0.0 release
> candidate you can enabled logging of FRM and RAW through the Web Management
> Console. Just add a new Log Inclusion Rule for both at level DEBUG.
>
> Let us know what you see.
>
> Keith.
>
>
0x7fd66000d7a0]:0 <- @*disposition*(21) [role=true, first=49, last=49,
settled=true, *state=@accepted*(36) []]
Do you want me to add this as a comment in the JIRA?
thank you.
oliv/
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Rob Godfrey
wrote:
> Hi Olivier,
>
> On 9 December 2015 at 10:06
As fas as I undestood, you cannot.
Robbie Gemmell gave an answer here
http://qpid.2158936.n2.nabble.com/JMS-AMQP-1-0-link-definition-and-guarantee-delivery-td7634939.html
"The core AMQP 1.0 protocol has no built in facility to explicitly
create name queues etc (except 'dynamic' nodes, e.g tempo
Hi all
I am still digging into the qpid technologies in order to better understand
how all the pieces can be tied together.
switching to the C++ broker implementation, I am trying to understand how
HA cluster and federation can work together and your feedback would be
appreciated.
AFAIU, if I mix
figures) need to be clarified and more perf
tests will be done.
I am yet figuring out how to play with the 4 dimensions (persistence,
clustering, federation, dispatch router) to build these channels, the
simplest way possible.
Cheers.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On
Hello
While using C++ Broker (0.34) and JMS Selector (JMS 0.7.0) I observed two
things:
1/ the JMSSelector filter cannot use the JMSCorrelationID header but must
use the amqp equivalent header. so my selector is
messageConsumer = session.createConsumer(queue,
"\"amqp.correlation_id\"='abc' AND c
21, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 05:02 PM, Olivier Mallassi wrote:
>
>> Based on this discussion, the JMSCorrelation ID should be ok in the next
>> release: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-6714
>>
>
> Yes, that is correct.
>
&g
thanks.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 08:43 PM, Olivier Mallassi wrote:
>
>> Are the filters executed on the broker?
>>
>
> Yes
>
>
>
> -
>
shut
down?
- is there a way to share this "queue" between multiple consumers so that
they can compete each other?
Cheers.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Olivier Mallassi <
olivier.malla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> thanks.
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Gordon Sim
(maybe the jms.queueprefix) but maybe that can help
- indeed JMS 2.0 defined shared subscription. Anyway, maybe during that
time I need to rely on AMQP 0.10 bindings (within the broker) to have
queues on which consumers can compete.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 09:2
uto delete
temp_rcv_qpid-jms:temp-queue-creator:ID::48e3b12c-a7f8-42cf-b499-168ddda7546a:1:1
auto-del
do not need to use the QueuePolicy
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Olivier Mallassi <
olivier.malla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - I am using session.createConsumer(myTopic, "messageS
JMSType (subject) or JMSCorrelationID are not used (or that
my binding is false).
Cheers.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Robbie Gemmell
wrote:
> On 22 December 2015 at 09:39, Gordon Sim wrote:
> > On 12/22/2015 09:22 AM, Olivier Mallassi wrote:
> >>
> >> by the wa
Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 04:09 PM, Olivier Mallassi wrote:
>
>> (my apologies for bothering you with all these questions...)
>>
>
> Not at all!
>
> It looks like JMSType (subject) or JMSCorrelationID are not used (or that
>&
it looks like this is exactly what I was looking for! I will try it (after
christmas)
Looking at the qpid.filter definition, it looks like I can use a rich
grammar (AND, OR, LIKE?). Is this define somewhere?
Regarding the --argument, I was looking at the python source (
https://svn.apache.org/rep
Alan, thank you for all these details.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:05 PM, aconway wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 12:02 +, Gordon Sim wrote:
> > On 12/15/2015 04:40 PM, Olivier Mallassi wrote:
> > > Hi all
> > >
> > > I am still digging into the
Gordon, thx. this just what I needed.
oliv/
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 06:13 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
>
> (You could use a headers exchange instead of the topic exchange and do
>> some of the selection logic there, but the only reason to do so I think
>> wou
Hi all
again, my apologies for all these questions.
I am trying to clarify my understanding around transactions support within
qpid and here is my current understanding (based on documentation & JIRA).
I have to say I did not test anything yet.
My use cases all go into the same pattern : (1) wri
ri, 2015-12-18 at 09:24 +0100, Olivier Mallassi wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > Gordon, thx.
> >
> > Regarding your last question "What are you aiming to achieve with the
> > federation? Is it scaling beyond the capacity of a single broker?" I
> > woul
Hi all,
sorry.
I have tried to summarize all this content in this table
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JilNwbBSftHxPZymJoaSeSA1uxpp9ZwXZyzDM9q6LQA/edit?usp=sharing
Hope that helps
oliv/
PS: thx for the precisions on the link between on
session/transaction/process.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2
Hello all
Is there a way to reload the conf file of Dispatch or do I need to reboot
it?
Regards.
oliv/
t;
> On 01/12/2016 11:55 AM, Olivier Mallassi wrote:
>
>> Hello all
>>
>> Is there a way to reload the conf file of Dispatch or do I need to reboot
>> it?
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> oliv/
>>
>>
> ---
Hi Paul
Regarding your question.it looks like federation in one option, dispatcher
is the other one.
With dispatcher, you can create distributed topology like
publishers --> dispatcher --> array of brokers (they do not know each
other) --> dispatcher --> consumers.
The broker can be java or c+
Hi
I do not know about the JS API but
1/ AFAIK, AMQP 1.0 does not define anything regarding queue creation and
assume queues already exist on the broker side.
2/ with qpid cpp, you could be able to create the "filtered queue " with
qpid-config add exchange topic subjects
qpid-config add queue
hello all
I have to say I am far from being fluent in c++ but one thing we really
like about proton is that it has no dependency and can be used in legacy
code
I do not know if the boost::function option will drive a dependency to
boost but this is maybe something to take into account.
Again, I
All,
The whole idea is
(1) to build the following chain : clients (Java/c++) <-> dispatcher(s) <->
java qpid brokers.
(2) with two ways SSL between all the components
test are ongoing but I was wondering if there is a way to configure the
dispatchers and the brokers to check (or not) the
Hi all,
Thank you for your answers. this is very helpful!
I was indeed hesitating between IP/hostname in the certificate (knowing it
could be a mess to manage) and filtering on the IP. I think the latter
option looks good enough.
@Rob, Thank you for your proposal. I do not have strong needs/commi
All,
I am facing the following context and would need your help as I am not able
to fully understand it from specification & code perspectives.
I need
- to send/consume messages using JMS and consume/send messages using
proton-c.
and
- my message can be of multiple types : application/json, appli
ecision to remove
> those and leave it as implementation detail since the concepts are not
> part of JMS.
>
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 16:45, Olivier Mallassi
> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I am facing the following context and would need your help as I am
Robbie,
Sorry and just in case. Is this decision "included decision to remove those
and leave it as implementation detail " definitive? :)
cheers
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 9:37 PM Olivier Mallassi
wrote:
> Thanks Robbie.
> I understand "leave it as implementation detail si
58 matches
Mail list logo
