Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of chubrilo@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.177 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=ocfiORoj2O/eUL8vbCkwJfV8Dz/P0AjVpV6ZO3JfKi+3CJpSXBXNmOpL4lHNFkxcbS
         NVW2Y0QDaZjLBnIrw6ZhZfb8Hh4hAEhJa+yxKG7vawrDaS5dL2OqGYNTwp/U3OSU+PAO
         o5mgb4e7WDxGP6R09SUDFr2j59sVSgEJI+tTM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: chubrilo@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <m3k4wm9ckb.fsf@alex.2e-systems.com>
References: <m3k4wm9ckb.fsf@alex.2e-systems.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:53:05 +0100
Message-ID: <36e91d9d0912170153g179464d1n183df8e445206417@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: STOMP order of acks?
From: Dejan Bosanac <dejan@nighttale.net>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi,

it's not a but. With client ack, the ack you send will acknowledge all
message up to the one you're sending ack for. So if you send acks out
of order, you'll get "unexpected ack" message.

You can use client-individual ack to achieve your desired
functionality (http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-1874)

Cheers
--
Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb

Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Blog - http://www.nighttale.net


On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Aleksandar Ivanisevic
<aleksandar@ivanisevic.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a consumer with prefetch>1 and client ack. If I send the acks
> out of order (not in the order the messages are received), I get an
> exception:
>
> org.apache.activemq.transport.stomp.ProtocolException: Unexpected ACK received for message-id
>
> is this in JMS specification that acks need to be received in the same
> order or is it STOMP bug?
>
> If it is supposed to be like that, how is one supposed to handle
> messages in parallel? Have a separate consumer for each thread?
>
> Hm, just found out that when I get this exception the message never
> gets redelivered, so this must be a STOMP bug, right?
>
>
>