On 21/01/2008, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 21/01/2008, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 19/01/2008, cmagoyrk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I began work with the 4.1 version of ActiveMQ, but initially experienced > > > problems as all messages (at least their ids) had to reside in memory, > > > which > > > would not work for large data sets. I started work with a Snapshot of the > > > 5.0 release and after 5.0 became production ready, continued with that. > > > > > > I realize that some of the problems i am referring to have already been > > > identified (the wrong enqueue count is shown in AMQ-1367) and have been > > > identified for several months. Perhaps these are not issues of great > > > importance, or perhaps there is a lack of development resources to > > > allocate > > > to them. > > > > > > Am I misunderstanding how to use the product, or is it not really ready > > > for > > > production usage with respect to persistent messaging? > > > > Its definitely ready for production usage; we've loads of customers in > > production right now (and they have been for years). > > > > Issues tend to get fixed by developers based on their itch; plus > > there's zillions of different use cases and scenarios for working with > > ActiveMQ. I'm sure AMQ-1367 will get fixed at some point; if its a > > huge issue for you, we welcome contributions. > > http://activemq.apache.org/contributing.html > > BTW AMQ-1367 is a pretty minor issue; queue counts show zero until the > queue has actually been used on startup (since we load destinations > lazily after a restart) - so its pretty easy to workaround that one.
It looks like AMQ-1367 is now fixed in trunk anyway :) -- James ------- http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ Open Source Integration http://open.iona.com
