On 25 August 2015 at 15:48, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/25/2015 03:17 PM, Matt Broadstone wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Matt Broadstone <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Matt Broadstone <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> I just ran into an issue with disposition states while writing a qpid >>>> integration test for node-amqp10. I'm explicitly sending a disposition >>>> with >>>> a "Rejected" state to qpidd, but qpidd is responding with an "Accepted" >>>> state (this has been verified with wireshark to be what's happening). >>>> >>>> I very well could have an error with how I'm setting up my >>>> sender/receiver links on the client side (receiver-settle-mode is >>>> "settle >>>> on disposition", sender-settle-mode is "mixed" or "unsettled"), but >>>> wanted >>>> to reach out to see if there was an existing issue with this. I'm still >>>> using qpidd 0.32 as we have yet to make the 0.34 ubuntu packages. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Matt >>>> >>> >>> >>> It does appear from the logs that qpidd is automatically settling the >>> message immediately, before my receiver link even sends a disposition. >>> What >>> are the correct link attach settings to disable this behavior then? > > > That is controlled by the snd-settle-mode requested by the receiver in its > attach. > >> Ah, I think there is some confusion on my part here. The disposition in >> this case is meant to be between sender+qpid, and receiver+qpid, not >> between the sender and receiver. I think I was trying to achieve something >> like rabbitmq has with "publisher acknowledgements" or "confirms". Are >> transactions the only way to solve this problem with qpid? > > > No, messages from a receiver will be explicitly accepted and settled once > they have been enqueued (unless of course the publisher has already settled > them). That is equivalent to the confirms in rabbitmq. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >
I had a quick chat with Matt on IRC earlier and it seems he actually was looking to try having a consumer from the broker be able to send disposition to a producer to the broker. I explained the dispositions are between the sender+broker and broker+receiver, but mentioned that Dispatch could be used to achieve the desired effect. Robbie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
