Also, prioritizedMessages=true is not required for the JMS grouping
feature, as documented at http://activemq.apache.org/message-groups.html.
On Dec 11, 2015 6:53 AM, "Tim Bain" <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
