AH ! Good point about the prefetch policy. That always confusing because it’s a way for messages to kind of be delivered but hidden.
Anyway. Setting prefetch to zero doesn’t resolve it.. But closing the second connection DOES… So I think this is how it works.. which I couldn’t find documented anywhere (but I’m sure I’m missing it ) - Prefetch is an issue because you shouldn’t assume it’s going to be sent to a specific connection unless prefetch is 0… - The redelivered message is always sent back to the consumer that originally consumed the message , if it’s still open. I wonder if this is done for performance reasons. The only way this is not the case is if that consumer goes away … then it’s redelivered to another host. On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Your problem is you are always creating a new consumer in your consume() > method but never closing it. So the consumer is sticking around and > hanging onto messages in prefetch. You either need to reuse your message > consumer (call receive() on the same open consumer after rollback because > it's getting the message again in prefetch) or close it and use a different > consumer. You might also be able to set prefetch to 0 to get it to work. > > I took your code and modified it both ways to show each strategy: > > https://gist.github.com/cshannon/45d573fabeba733c6bb6 > https://gist.github.com/cshannon/64b8f790f9b57269ae45 > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Kevin Burton <bur...@spinn3r.com> wrote: > > > OK. > > > > For the life of me I can’t get this to work. > > > > https://gist.github.com/burtonator/eb7a70e1750080ca621e > > > > Basically I want to call rollback() so that a message is retries later. > > This way if there’s a transient but like a database connection failing it > > gets retried (but of course uses the retry policy). > > > > The problem is that it just doesn’t work. > > > > I tried creating too ‘clients’ whereby each has its own client ID. That > > doesn’t work either. > > > > I went through the tests in ActiveMQ and didn’t see anything obvious > > there. I must be missing something super obvious…. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > -- > > > > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com > > Location: *San Francisco, CA* > > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com > > … or check out my Google+ profile > > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts> > > > -- Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com Location: *San Francisco, CA* blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com … or check out my Google+ profile <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
