Thats awesome. saves a lot of time for me as a developer trying to do my own synchronization.
thanks Tim. Timothy Bish wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 06:44 -0700, nmittal wrote: >> below is an excerpt from the book "ActiveMQ in action"... >> The JMS spec specifically defines concurrency for various objects in the >> JMS >> API and requires that only a few objects support concurrent access. The >> ConnectionFactory, Connection and Destination objects are required to >> support concurrent access while the Session, the MessageProducer and the >> MessageConsumer objects do not support concurrent access. The point is >> that >> the Session, the MessageProducer and the MessageConsumer objects should >> not >> be shared across threads in a Java application. >> >> However, the the examples that come with ActiveMQ CPP... the onMessage >> function uses the session, consumer objects. I think the onMessage would >> be >> called in seperate threads for each message in the queue. So given that >> session and consumer classes are not threadsafe...is it correct to do so? >> >> thanks >> Nishant >> > > While the spec defines that certain types be thread safe we've shrived > to ensure that all operations on the CMS objects are thread safe. That > being said I would advise showing constraint on overusing CMS objects in > a method like onMessage as the time spent in that method delays delivery > of messages, so you wouldn't want to start producing messages from > onMessage for instance. > > Regards > Tim. > > -- > Tim Bish > http://fusesource.com > http://timbish.blogspot.com/ > > > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CMS-and-Multithreading-tp23333314p23335072.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
