From issues-return-26716-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@activemq.apache.org Tue Mar 20 19:15:06 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 6CB1B18064A for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:15:05 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 16345 invoked by uid 500); 20 Mar 2018 18:15:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact issues-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list issues@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 16336 invoked by uid 99); 20 Mar 2018 18:15:04 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:15:04 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id C62BE1A08CC for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:15:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.511 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7OsAbyIIvugh for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:15:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 982B45F5B7 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:15:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id DEB39E0D6E for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:15:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 6F988214C5 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:15:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:15:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "Justin Bertram (JIRA)" To: issues@activemq.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (ARTEMIS-1755) Delete message from duplicate cache on message consume MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1755?page=3Dcom.atlassi= an.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=3D16= 406806#comment-16406806 ]=20 Justin Bertram commented on ARTEMIS-1755: ----------------------------------------- bq. I want to use the same ID because they are exactly the same message. I'm a bit confused. In the issue description you said, "A message containin= g a person's information is sent to a queue and consumed. After sometime, t= he person's address is updated and the update message is sent to queue." If= the person's address is updated does that not mean that the contents of th= e message you're sending is different than the previous message (i.e. the n= ew message contains a different, updated address)? Perhaps that's not the w= ay your application is designed, but it's not clear from your description. = Please clarify. bq. The only problem is the first message was consumed already... What should happen if the first message *wasn't* already consumed. Should t= he new "update" message be considered a duplicate in that case and ignored? In what case should duplicate detection actually ignore messages in your ap= plication? It seems like sometimes you want it to detect duplicates and so= metimes you don't, but the specifics of each case is not clear. bq. ...wouldn't being able to configure it to delete ID from the cache on d= elete/consume from the queue make it more flexible? Technically speaking it would make it more flexible, but flexibility in its= elf isn't a good enough reason to implement such a change as flexibility al= so increases complexity (which increases the chance of bugs) and reduces ma= intainability. I still don't understand your use-case enough to know why t= he existing duplicate detection wouldn't work for you. > Delete message from duplicate cache on message consume > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: ARTEMIS-1755 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1755 > Project: ActiveMQ Artemis > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Broker > Affects Versions: 2.4.0 > Reporter: Rini Bollarapu > Priority: Minor > Labels: newbie > > Hi, duplicate cache still contains the message even if the message was co= nsumed from the queue or deleted from the queue. From the documentation, it= looks like there's no configuration to handle something like this.=C2=A0 > Example: > A message containing a person's information is sent to a queue and consum= ed. After sometime, the person's address is updated and the update message = is sent to queue. This updated message is ignored as a duplicate because th= e original message was not removed from the duplicate cache when it was con= sumed. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)