Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 91351 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2006 09:42:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Feb 2006 09:42:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 12602 invoked by uid 500); 27 Feb 2006 09:42:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 12553 invoked by uid 500); 27 Feb 2006 09:42:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact activemq-users-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 12544 invoked by uid 99); 27 Feb 2006 09:42:15 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:42:15 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of james.strachan@gmail.com designates 64.233.184.193 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.184.193] (HELO wproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.184.193) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:42:14 -0800 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 71so129929wra for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:41:53 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:message-id:cc:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=GALZJ20HD/LwlW7dhzMuyskID+Gj5HtvDOtnJiVkfCI0oRveQ/nF4GrBXaK7oPGAQg7ojLEpfAlQee2JkCNe5MjUSeeiIPvA05J9z9bLP4qIDdWKxJxb0zKhqpp2wGGKiJzuDEdRQqiZEz+TWIHCW9uFfl7RdPULRyTgOL7AoXQ= Received: by 10.65.122.9 with SMTP id z9mr4531540qbm; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:41:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.0.2? ( [82.45.246.79]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id f12sm2524167qba.2006.02.27.01.41.52; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:41:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <7492DB9D-AE2B-4D0A-8E0F-A2FD61FE4A2E@gmail.com> Cc: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: James Strachan Subject: Re: Client unable to receive messages (after some time) when using PooledConnectionFactory Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:41:46 +0000 To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Note that the PooledConnectionFactory is only designed for sending of messages - and is purely designed for folks using Spring's JmsTemplate to send messages without under the covers creating and closing a MessageProducer for every message sent. If you want to pool connections/sessions/consumers for the inbound consumption of messages we recommend using either * Message Driven Beans in a J2EE container like Geronimo * Message Driven POJOs using Jencks (http://jencks.org/) * try Spring JMS in Spring 2.0 - though this does not support XA AFAIK James On 25 Feb 2006, at 15:44, Alex Thieme wrote: > Hello, > > I am currently running with version 3.2.1, an embedded broker, with > clients using the reliable protocol, and a pooled connection > factory (all defined using Spring, if that makes a difference). > After some time running, sending messages successfully, the > producers (to a few queues) are still able to send messages, but > the corresponding consumers are no longer able to receive. The call > to receive returns null, and does not throw an Exception. > > As a test, I switched to NOT use the pooled connection factory, and > low and behold my tests ran to completion (i.e. consumers were able > to receive all messages where before they would have failed). > > The Spring configuration I am using is included below (both the > pooled and non-pooled versions). > > Incidentally, I added the "useAsyncSend" property to the connection > factory in an attempt to speed things up and and ?keepAliveTime=-1 > to my broker in an attempt to say "don't ever consider the > connection to be dead". I don't know if either of these are > relevant, used, etc. I'm open to other properties/options to make > things more reliable (required) and perform as fast as possible > (desired). > > I see there was an update to 3.2.2; but, I don't see anything in > the change log that speaks to this type of problem. > > Thanks in advance for any help. > > Alex > > BTW, I apologize for the repost (originally sent to activemq- > users); but, I wasn't sure where the right place was to post this, > and that list didn't seem to be all that active. > > > > class="org.activemq.ActiveMQConnectionFactory" > singleton="true" > lazy-init="true"> > > > > > > > class="org.activemq.ActiveMQConnectionFactory" > singleton="true" > lazy-init="true"> > > > > > > > > > class="org.activemq.pool.PooledConnectionFactory" > singleton="true" > lazy-init="true"> > > > > > > > > > > > class="org.activemq.pool.PooledConnectionFactory" > singleton="true" > lazy-init="true"> > > > > > > > > James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/