Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 5395 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2008 17:44:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Feb 2008 17:44:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 25641 invoked by uid 500); 26 Feb 2008 17:44:48 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 25622 invoked by uid 500); 26 Feb 2008 17:44:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 25613 invoked by uid 99); 26 Feb 2008 17:44:48 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:44:48 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bchobot@vigilos.com designates 216.231.46.252 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.231.46.252] (HELO tonga.vigilos.com) (216.231.46.252) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:44:03 +0000 Received: from icecube.vigilos.com ([192.168.10.65]) by tonga.vigilos.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:44:23 -0800 Message-ID: <47C44FF7.80609@vigilos.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:44:23 -0800 From: Ben Chobot User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: Ordering of persistent/non-persistent messages in ActiveMQ 5 References: <44cb1ba30802252249t228ddeffpfdbecb31353d9959@mail.gmail.com> <47C44574.7090002@vigilos.com> <44cb1ba30802260941v2946a976x5fe7e2bc569423c5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <44cb1ba30802260941v2946a976x5fe7e2bc569423c5@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Feb 2008 17:44:23.0751 (UTC) FILETIME=[395BCD70:01C8789F] X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Certainly, but if order matters, wouldn't you expect to get all or none of your messages that depend upon each other? Why would you send x as non-persistent and x+1 as persistent if x+1 requires x to be processed? Roger Hoover wrote: > There are applications in which message order matters and you generally > wouldn't expect message properties to affect the order of delivery unless > you're using a selector. > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Ben Chobot wrote: > > >> Why wouldn't you want it to be this way? >> >> Roger Hoover wrote: >> >>> Using STOMP on AMQ 5, if I enqueue some persistent and non-persistent >>> messages and then consume them, they don't get consumed in the order in >>> which they were produced. The non-persistent messages are delivered >>> >> first >> >>> (with their relative order preserved) followed by the persistent >>> >> messages >> >>> (also with their relative order preserved). >>> >>> AMQ 4 preserved message order regardless of persistence settings. >>> >>> Is this expected behavior? Is it controlled by any configuration? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Roger >>> >>> >>> >> > >