On 2 July 2018 at 12:47, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 02/07/18 12:33, akabhishek1 wrote: >> >> Hi Gordon And Robbie, >> >> Thanks a lot for your response. I think you are right it seems upper level >> exception. >> After doing research, i came on below conclusion. >> >> Problem - If we create only Connection(without producer and consumer) and >> kept Connection idle without creating producer and consumer, then we are >> receiving "idle timeOut" error. >> Workaround - If we create Connection with producer/consumer and kept idle >> without doing anything, then we are not receiving any error. > > > That makes sense, since without either a producer or a consumer, you can't > do anything. What is the point of being connected if you are not going to > either send or receive messages? > >> Conclusion - It seems, we definitely need to have one active >> producer/consumer >> >> Requirement - Need to create producer on demand. > >> >> >> Could you please suggest best approach to handle this scenario. > > > I don't understand your question. Presumably you know what you want to be > sending or receiving or there is no need to be connected. If the issue is > that you may send to different addresses you can pass null for the > destination when creating the producer then set the destination per-message. > (Not sure if that has any impact on the idle policy for servicebus as you > describe above). >
I dont think ServiceBus advertises support for ANONYMOUS-RELAY, so the JMS client wont use an an anonymous terminus link, and will fall back to opening and closing links for messages sent with the producer object in that case, which wouldnt give the desired effect I think you had in mind. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
