activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mittler, Nathan" <nathan.mitt...@sensis.com>
Subject RE: Implementation of multithreading model on CMS ActiveMQ
Date Mon, 21 May 2007 16:43:46 GMT
Sorry ... The url should be "tcp://localhost:61613?wireFormat=stomp"

See http://activemq.apache.org/cms/configuring.html 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pravin Kundal [mailto:pravin_kundal@persistent.co.in] 
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 12:34 PM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Implementation of multithreading model on CMS ActiveMQ
> 
> 
> I am trying to test it out using stomp.
> But it is giving me exceptions
> On Consumer Client: ActiveMQConnectionFactory - unknown 
> Transport Factory.
> 
> I tried with following brokerURI's
> 
> std::string brokerURI =   "stomp://localhost:61613"
>                                      "?wireFormat=stomp"
> 		           "&transport.useAsyncSend=true";
> 
> std::string brokerURI =   "stomp://localhost:61613"
> 
> std::string brokerURI =   "stomp://localhost:61616"
> 
> can you please help us out?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Mittler, Nathan wrote:
> > 
> >  
> >> 
> >> In the case I will need to implement the concurrency 
> control over the 
> >> session, so that only one thread can use the session, as 
> sessions are 
> >> implemented for serial use? Rght?
> > 
> > Yes, you should add your own concurrency control for the session.
> > 
> >> 
> >> I tried the first case in which i implemented the multithreading, 
> >> each thread running its own session and each session having one 
> >> producer. But the results were not even close to our requriment 
> >> (result in msges/sec).
> >> 
> > 
> > Were you using openwire or stomp as the protocol?  We have 
> seen cases 
> > where small messages with openwire cause extra delay due to 
> the naggle 
> > algorithm and that message footprints are smaller than their stomp 
> > counterpart.  If you're using openwire, I suggest you 
> switch over to 
> > stomp and see if you have different results.  If that does 
> the trick, 
> > our next release will allow a user-specified TCP-NODELAY 
> socket option 
> > that should fix the problem for openwire (for small messages).
> > 
> >> Do you think the other case can give us the better results 
> (i.e. "The 
> >> ActiveMQ-CPP implementation, however, will allow you to share a 
> >> session across threads.")
> >> 
> > 
> > Without understanding your particular usage of the client, I would 
> > guess that a different usage wouldn't help much.  Just to 
> make sure, 
> > however, you could slightly modify our example application 
> > 
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/activemq-cpp/trunk/src/examp
> > le s/main.cpp and see if you can get it to meet your requirements.
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Nate
> > 
> > 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://www.nabble.com/Implementation-of-multithreading-model-o
> n-CMS-ActiveMQ-tf3790047s2354.html#a10722340
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message