Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 48160106C1 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 05:12:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 22765 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jul 2014 05:12:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 22721 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jul 2014 05:12:19 -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 22700 invoked by uid 99); 28 Jul 2014 05:12:19 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 05:12:19 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.1 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_2,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_REMOTE_IMAGE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of burtonator2011@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.44 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.44] (HELO mail-la0-f44.google.com) (209.85.215.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 05:12:17 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id e16so5061736lan.31 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:11:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=p6mLM8F43KstkOoyNQEsSbSv9zX+m7d8+CvEFWwjCAE=; b=qND1NS5deh4STYjIEBtcU3ry34KDRjpLOQ8SF1ePDsL/XyB/lCfhUNw1gAqicxjbUc Y+jGSzqdnIj7Vz0H021HJvZ04viqWvCA8SpVFrGF69cpNW8ofv4lkA/kP0blqq4p+r5q PTv9/uhNhBfeMH+f46lgdj3yjZgRAHZrpdmZ0YiRy2MYlkCQM3LMJVrioLb1y5FAS/M4 gm3QyYfg/uUmmQh3rcxj7+rEY5FBLp9D7fwijg6C1kufeNUcaz9IYPZVo2BcGSJy51ji Ag8S3zwen9JietSAcyeFV+ZpsnQBID/JFPv4HyWleFgbulOByf4X93Sg4kP9LZjKYEGw haCQ== X-Received: by 10.152.116.68 with SMTP id ju4mr11885168lab.24.1406524312433; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:11:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: burtonator2011@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.180.137 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:11:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Kevin Burton Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:11:32 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: n4Es3V9p19_aragawytXw2OrKIY Message-ID: Subject: Are session.commit() and message.acknowledge() analogous ? To: users@activemq.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3572a02ba4d04ff39f6a3 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a11c3572a02ba4d04ff39f6a3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm migrating from CLIENT_ACKNOWLEDGE to SESSION_TRANSACTED because I need to send maybe a dozen new messages and then acknowledge the current message all at once. So it seems like: message.acknowledge() and session.commit() are analogous=E2=80=A6 .. IE I have to ALWAYS call session.commit() or the last consumed message won't be acknowledged. Is this correct? --=20 Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com Location: *San Francisco, CA* blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com =E2=80=A6 or check out my Google+ profile --001a11c3572a02ba4d04ff39f6a3--