I don't see why you need one high-priority consumer and one medium-priority
consumer. Using prioritizedMessages=true already ensures that the broker
will hand your consumers the highest priority messages first; just leave it
at that.
Also, separating high and low processing isn't a requirement (or at least,
it's a dumb requirement); the requirement should be to do something that is
meaningful and useful to a user of the system, and separating high and low
processing would then be the design chosen for how to meet the
requirement. I'm skeptical that you have a "real-world" requirement that
is best met by separating high and low processing, and so I think the
requirement you've been given is one that shouldn't be met. But I'm
certainly open to being proven wrong if there really is such a "real-world"
requirement for your system...
On Dec 11, 2015 12:51 AM, "frankie_hr" <franjo.zemu...@2e-systems.com>
wrote:
> Hi Jose,
>
> I'm using the prioritizedMessages=true because of the JMS grouping feature.
>
> In the application I'm running, one of the most important features is that
> messages with the same group ID are not processed in parallel, thus the
> message grouping ensuring the same consumer always gets the message with
> the
> same ID, so that they are processed sequentially.
>
> The most recent requirement was to additionally separate processing of
> messages with the low and high priority, but by still keeping the message
> grouping rule defined above. What I meant to achieve that way was for
> different consumers to process low and high priority message, with the same
> group ID, but while keeping the sequential message processing order.
>
> Any other ideas on how to achieve that?
>
> One other idea of mine was to define a route which would say something like
> this:
>
> from("jms:queue:test?concurrentConsumers=1")
> .choice()
> .when(header("JMSPriority").isGreaterThanOrEqualTo(4))
> .to("jms:queue:normalPriority")
> .otherwise()
> .to("jms:queue:lowPriority")
> .endChoice();
>
> However, in that case, the messages consumed from the normalPriority and
> lowPriority queues might be processed in parallel, which I'm trying to
> avoid.
>
> Regards,
> Frankie
>
>
> Jose María Zaragoza wrote
> > A question about your code:
> >
> > why do you configure prioritizedMessages= true on your broker and also
> > use consumers with a selector parameter ?
> > I guess that to use consumers with a selector parameter is for
> > avoiding to set prioritizedMessages= true
> >
> > With prioritizedMessages= true , the broker try to deliver the
> > messages in order by priority
> >
> > It's only curiosity
> >
> > Regards
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Selective-consuming-of-priority-messages-with-message-groups-tp4704813p4704881.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
