Hello Robbie,
I think I wasn't clear enough. So let me explain.
JMS
-----------
Session session = connection.createSession(false, Session.AUTO_ACKNOWLEDGE);
MessageConsumer consumer =
session.createConsumer(session.createQueue("queue.name"));
consumer.receive();
In the above code, when "receive" returns the message is no longer present on
the broker. This is guaranteed. Is this statement correct?
Proton-c
--------------
on_message()
When on_message finished processing, I have no guarantee the message is no
longer present on the broker as above.
In the reactor code, the message disappears from the broker when
PN_REACTOR_QUIESCED event is handled after the message was received
(disposition event is sent to the broker).
So my question here is how can I replicate the JMS behavior?
Regards,
Adel
________________________________
From: Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 4:26 PM
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Proton-c] [C++ bindings][0.14.0] How do I know a message was
settled by the receiver?
On 17 November 2016 at 14:39, Adel Boutros <adelbout...@live.com> wrote:
> Thank you Alan for your response! However, I am still a bit lost.
>
>
> So you are saying that today there is no way to guarantee that a received
> message has been settled without having to treat duplication. Is that correct?
>
>
> I still have 2 questions then:
>
> 1. When will messaging_handler::on_delivery_settle be called?
>
My guess is it wont currently, if the client settles the message while
it accepts then the delivery is settled as far as the client is
concerned.
> 2. How does Qpid JMS guarantee the settlement of the received messages
> knowing it is based on proton-j which behaves to some extent the same way
> proton-c does?
>
It doesnt behave any differently than described above/previous mail.
The client settles it when accepting then thats it, the message is
settled as far as the client is concerned.
> Regards,
>
> Adel
>
> ________________________________
> From: Alan Conway <acon...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 3:22:17 PM
> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Proton-c] [C++ bindings][0.14.0] How do I know a message was
> settled by the receiver?
>
> On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 08:41 +0000, Adel Boutros wrote:
>> I would like to add a bit of context. My C++ client has a method
>> called "receiveTextMessage()". This method is supposed to simulate
>> what JMS.receiveMessage() does which is block until a message is
>> received and settled.
>>
>>
>> So, I am using wait/notify mechanism to unblock my consumer when the
>> message is settled and no longer available on the broker.
>>
>> It seems in the code, when the auto_accept is set to true (default
>> behavior), there is no way to be notified when the delivery is
>> settled and only on_message will be called
>> (proton::messaging_adapter.cpp).
>
> auto-accept() is no different from calling accept() at the end of your
> on_message() - feel free to turn it off if you want more control.
>
> auto vs. manual doesn't change the events you see. It depends on how
> your receiver delivery_mode:
>
> AT_MOST_ONCE: sent pre-settled, unreliable, fire-and-forget.
>
> AT_LEAST_ONCE: receiver-settles-first: receiver settles before sending
> accept, will not get any notification of outcome. There may be
> duplicates if accepts are lost.
>
> AMQP also offers: receiver-settles-second - this is the most reliable
> "3-way-ack" receiver sends accept but doesn't settle, sender settles on
> getting accept, receiver settles after sender. This can be used to
> implement the holy grail of "EXACTLY_ONCE" but it requires a lot of
> state to be tracked. Proton doesn't have built-in support for it and
> the C++ API lacks a delivery_mode to set it (but that's easy to fix)
>
>> In that case, between the time MyHandler::on_message is called and
>> the time where the message is settled (d.accept() in the below code),
>> can't anything go wrong?
>
> Yes, the network can break and you have no idea if the accept made it
> which means you re-queue the message and may potentially send a
> duplicate. This is acceptable for AT_LEAST_ONCE, the application needs
> to handle de-duplication (that's the part that's hard to do in a
> generic and efficient way)
>
>> PS: As the event_loop has performance issues, I am using the
>> timerTask and schedule for the interaction between the consumer main
>> thread and the handler thread.
>
> Thanks, the issue will be fixed I promise.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
