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 burtonator2011@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: burtonator2011@gmail.com
From: Kevin Burton <burton@spinn3r.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 14:24:58 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAAZU44kEet-7m_TkdV+jbKU3V9iHFqEmgqDsQ_=mytaPT35svA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: 
 =?UTF-8?Q?Sending_directly_to_a_queue_doesn=E2=80=99t_raise_ActiveMQ?=
	=?UTF-8?Q?=2EAdvisory=2EProducer=2EQueue=2E=3E?=
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113c134ee20b3f050e226ddc

--001a113c134ee20b3f050e226ddc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I=E2=80=99m unsure if this is a bug or another ActiveMQ idiosyncrasy=E2=80=
=A6

If I send to a producer with:

        MessageProducer producer =3D session.createProducer( dest );
        producer.send( message );

That works and I receive the advisory.

However, if send like this:

        MessageProducer producer =3D session.createProducer( null );
        producer.send( dest, message );

The advisory isn=E2=80=99t raised.  I have a unit test to confirm that the =
message
was delivered to the queue and that it fails to raise the advisory.

The problem is that the second method is about 5x faster than the first.

I can certainly rewrite my code, but this could lead to bugs where code
expects to receive the advisory notice but now there=E2=80=99s a back door =
to send
messages without the advisory message meaning that you could break
production code.

--=20

Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
Location: *San Francisco, CA*
blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
=E2=80=A6 or check out my Google+ profile
<https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
<http://spinn3r.com>

--001a113c134ee20b3f050e226ddc--