Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of james.strachan@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.217.13 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=lmSrpOL7ZKum5ne4s9l1Z+2uBLy1LAhWuWAjwZLFI9ZMcPmYgyPSLVQzQA+3OQQ9a+
         Z7AwBtPgZckk0VtOjqhIJL5Sr6Ie7WWmIPpv3SmW+7hJrpgvp/3pYIm9QRHjSrsMZ9lH
         JCY5plVZvak4pMBdNOhw5DRP5p7cindTBR+J0=
Message-ID: <ec6e67fd0812110711r13a38a66q7bf43791665618a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:11:34 +0000
From: "James Strachan" <james.strachan@gmail.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Rollback and acknowledge
In-Reply-To: <20956424.post@talk.nabble.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20934209.post@talk.nabble.com>
	 <ec6e67fd0812100520j6d783ab7uf00ceb6a84eac472@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20937721.post@talk.nabble.com>
	 <ec6e67fd0812100749h14b34d39j1b3513efe03a5587@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20952098.post@talk.nabble.com>
	 <ec6e67fd0812110130u49eb3a70g544e3460ef9a706a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec6e67fd0812110132q3d792c51od12c2898c85e4362@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20956173.post@talk.nabble.com>
	 <ec6e67fd0812110619t403df94ega38b8a8752d8e476@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20956424.post@talk.nabble.com>

2008/12/11 mmocnik <m.mocnik@e-nnovation.at>:
>
>
>
> James.Strachan wrote:
>>
>> 2008/12/11 mmocnik <m.mocnik@e-nnovation.at>:
>>>
>>>
>>> James.Strachan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>> though I think putting redelivered messages at the tail of the queue
>>>> (so its dispatched last) is what you want - so resending the message
>>>> rather than rolling back & closing is probably more suitable
>>>>
>>> Yes, that is what I want to achieve, but if I do it that way I'm loosing
>>> the
>>> benefits of redelivery by ActiveMQ:
>>> - RedeliveryDelay (with exponentialBackoff)
>>> - RedeliveryLimit
>>
>> But those don't matter if the next message you are processing is a
>> totally different message?
>>
>> --
>> James
>> -------
>> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Open Source Integration
>> http://fusesource.com/
>>
>>
>
> Well, not for the next message, but for the message I want to resend.

Sending the message to be rolled back to the head of the queue will
add a delay (since consumers will have to process all pending messages
first).

If you want an explicit delay before republishing the message I'd
suggest using Camel with the delayer...
http://activemq.apache.org/camel/delayer.html

so you'd send to the delay queue with some timeout; then the delayer
could then route it back to the queue

-- 
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com/