activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From SuoNayi <>
Subject Re:Re: can we combine message groups and jms selectors
Date Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:01:41 GMT
Yes, you can assume that works.
It seems you want your message flow to be split into two message flows, one for 
the lower priority messages while the other for the higher priority messages 
and you want they are stuck on two 'exclusive' consumers respectively.

For the sparse selector In one word , the current architecture of amq is not 
good at handling dispatching messages to the consumer with a sparse selector.
There are many discussions about this limit and the following is the representative one,

At 2013-03-27 14:46:41,"Daniel Guggi" <> wrote:
>thank your for your info.
>would i work in theory for my case  (because i ensure that all messages
>with same JMSXGroupID will have same Priority) or would it work generally
>(even when messages with same JMSXGroupID have different priorities - dont
>know if that really makes sense tough...)?
>yes, we also consider using two queues instead of one queue with
>Can u please explain whay consumers my get stuck with sparse selector?
>On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:59 AM, SuoNayi <> wrote:
>> seems work in theory.
>> Why not using two queues to send the different messages?
>> It's more easy for problem diagnosis if some trouble is present.
>> Besides, Do not use sparse selector or your consumers may get stuck.
>> At 2013-03-26 22:58:29,"Daniel Guggi" <> wrote:
>> >hi,
>> >
>> >im curious if it is possible to use message-groups and jms selectors
>> >together.
>> >
>> >example:
>> >
>> >i have consumer 'normalPriorityConsumer' for queue "X" with selector
>> >'JMSProperty >= 4'
>> >i have consumer 'lowPrioritiyConsumer' for queue "X" with selector
>> >'JMSProperty < 4'
>> >
>> >all messages send to queue "X" will have the JMSXGroupID header set.
>> >
>> >would activemq be capable of sending to the appropriate consumer based on
>> >the priority?
>> >
>> >in my scenario this might work, because we ensure that for a given
>> >jmsxGroupID the priority is always the same for all messages...
>> >
>> >ty,
>> >daniel

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message