Mailing-List: contact activemq-users-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 72.21.53.35 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <6221179.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 00:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: kentdorsey <kentdorsey@gmail.com>
To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: JDBC persistence and slow scanning of removal of old messages
In-Reply-To: <6795174F-9C10-4137-9D16-5518BBC5AEE4@aconex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6795174F-9C10-4137-9D16-5518BBC5AEE4@aconex.com>


Paul Smith-2 wrote:
> 
> We had a producer-consumer across the network using a topic, not  
> durable, but no TTL set on the messages, and I can't see anywhere  
> where it would set this as persistent, but somehow the messages are  
> appearing in the ACTIVEMQ_MSGS table, and are set with an expiration  
> value of 0, which means they never get deleted by the periodic task  
> in activemq that deals with that.  Now, as it turns out we don't need  
> this producer-consumer anymore, so we're removing the code, but why  
> would a Topic message not explicitly set for persistence or durable  
> subscription be put in the DB in the first place?
> 

Taken from javax.jms.Message:

	DEFAULT_DELIVERY_MODE
          The message producer's default delivery mode is PERSISTENT.

Running into a similar problem with 3.2.1 on a client's project with the
messages
not being removed in a network of brokers on topics with non-durable
subscriptions.

Several related JIRA issues and forum messages recommend an upgrade to 4.x,
but the project may not be able to do this, due to JMS version issues,
if J2EE 1.4 is required.

I notice that in related JIRA issues that the _consequences_ of persistent
messages
not being removed for topics and queues are addressed, but not the
underlying
issue of why they were not being removed in the first place.

Trying to track down the issue in the source, but the logic for
acknowledging
and removing persisted non-durable topic messages is taking some time to
trace.

Kent
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/JDBC-persistence-and-slow-scanning-of-removal-of-old-messages-tf1123353.html#a6221179
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.