Any negative number will close the message group. Regards, Raúl.
On 12 December 2011 19:05, Raul Kripalani <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, message groups is the way to go. I've used this in the past and it's > an extremely elegant and well-behaved pattern ;) > > If producers shut down cleanly, you may want to take care of closing the > relevant Message Group by sending the JMSXGroupSeq header = 0 or -1. Not > sure which is the right value because the AMQ doc seems to contradict > around this point - just posting a message on the AMQ forum. > > Regards, > Raúl. > > On 12 December 2011 17:00, Charles Hudak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ah, message groups...that would theoretically do exactly what I need. >> >> Thanks! >> >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Claus Ibsen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi >> > >> > See this FAQ on AMQ which have some pointers. Maybe some of that is >> > possible for you. >> > In case you use a message broker or AMQ >> > http://activemq.apache.org/how-do-i-preserve-order-of-messages.html >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Charles Hudak <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > I'm wondering if something is possible... >> > > >> > > I have a need to implement FIFO queuing on a source basis but I have a >> > > potential to have thousands (millions?) of potential sources (e.g. a >> set >> > of >> > > mobile devices). I want messages from each source to be processed in >> FIFO >> > > order seriallly but I need concurrency in general in the system (e.g. >> > > source A can be processed concurrently with source B but all of >> source A >> > > and source B's messages should be processed in serial fashion. >> > > >> > > Sources can theoretically join and leave the system at any time so >> there >> > > isn't any way to pre-configure them when the system starts. >> > > >> > > For capacity reasons idle source endpoints (consumers) should >> disposed of >> > > so they don't consume resources. >> > > >> > > So, in general, what I want to do is: >> > > >> > > When a message is received from sourceA an endpoint (consumer) is >> spun up >> > > to process the message (and any additional messages for sourceA that >> come >> > > in while the endpoint is active) but once the endpoint becomes idle >> and >> > is >> > > receiving no more messages, it should be closed down. >> > > >> > > Is something like this doable in Camel? Does anyone know how I would >> > > configure things to get this to work? >> > > >> > > Thanks in advance for any pointers... >> > > >> > > Charles >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Claus Ibsen >> > ----------------- >> > FuseSource >> > Email: [email protected] >> > Web: http://fusesource.com >> > Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews >> > Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ >> > Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/ >> > >> > >
