Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Implementation of multithreading model on CMS ActiveMQ
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 12:43:46 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <7743F17344E95A4CA78A3E53A7AF496B0103A515@corpatsmail1.corp.sensis.com>
In-Reply-To: <10722340.post@talk.nabble.com>
Thread-Topic: Implementation of multithreading model on CMS ActiveMQ
Thread-Index: AcebxfVeBO8KZnX3QZCVzUbl+jKPlAAARHzg
From: "Mittler, Nathan" <nathan.mittler@sensis.com>
To: <users@activemq.apache.org>

Sorry ... The url should be "tcp://localhost:61613?wireFormat=3Dstomp"

See http://activemq.apache.org/cms/configuring.html=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pravin Kundal [mailto:pravin_kundal@persistent.co.in]=20
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 12:34 PM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Implementation of multithreading model on CMS ActiveMQ
>=20
>=20
> I am trying to test it out using stomp.
> But it is giving me exceptions
> On Consumer Client: ActiveMQConnectionFactory - unknown=20
> Transport Factory.
>=20
> I tried with following brokerURI's
>=20
> std::string brokerURI =3D   "stomp://localhost:61613"
>                                      "?wireFormat=3Dstomp"
> 		           "&transport.useAsyncSend=3Dtrue";
>=20
> std::string brokerURI =3D   "stomp://localhost:61613"
>=20
> std::string brokerURI =3D   "stomp://localhost:61616"
>=20
> can you please help us out?
>=20
> Thanks.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Mittler, Nathan wrote:
> >=20
> > =20
> >>=20
> >> In the case I will need to implement the concurrency=20
> control over the=20
> >> session, so that only one thread can use the session, as=20
> sessions are=20
> >> implemented for serial use? Rght?
> >=20
> > Yes, you should add your own concurrency control for the session.
> >=20
> >>=20
> >> I tried the first case in which i implemented the multithreading,=20
> >> each thread running its own session and each session having one=20
> >> producer. But the results were not even close to our requriment=20
> >> (result in msges/sec).
> >>=20
> >=20
> > Were you using openwire or stomp as the protocol?  We have=20
> seen cases=20
> > where small messages with openwire cause extra delay due to=20
> the naggle=20
> > algorithm and that message footprints are smaller than their stomp=20
> > counterpart.  If you're using openwire, I suggest you=20
> switch over to=20
> > stomp and see if you have different results.  If that does=20
> the trick,=20
> > our next release will allow a user-specified TCP-NODELAY=20
> socket option=20
> > that should fix the problem for openwire (for small messages).
> >=20
> >> Do you think the other case can give us the better results=20
> (i.e. "The=20
> >> ActiveMQ-CPP implementation, however, will allow you to share a=20
> >> session across threads.")
> >>=20
> >=20
> > Without understanding your particular usage of the client, I would=20
> > guess that a different usage wouldn't help much.  Just to=20
> make sure,=20
> > however, you could slightly modify our example application=20
> >=20
> 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.
> >=20
> >=20
> > Regards,
> > Nate
> >=20
> >=20
>=20
> --
> View this message in context:=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20