Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: tbain98@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <o5pdna12ukjg0nm5ragq3157k4auj01g3l@4ax.com>
References: <ol6dnah9dhhqhbh55h6lhppliute6fei6r@4ax.com>
 <ol6dnah9dhhqhbh55h6lhppliute6fei6r-e09XROE/p8c@public.gmane.org>
 <CACHnxzwYx_FBkhyJAEQ8ReNe0Bf3YC2abbphYhmiBLfYAtFRfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e6ldnatnsm4519e2jufbdnq9mm2kvs3828@4ax.com>
 <e6ldnatnsm4519e2jufbdnq9mm2kvs3828-e09XROE/p8c@public.gmane.org>
 <CAPVVMa9J4jveT_CtwPKMQ8oVqfcM4DkkPkWWUcgWsTH2rdvYJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <o5pdna12ukjg0nm5ragq3157k4auj01g3l@4ax.com>
From: Tim Bain <tbain@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 07:29:16 -0600
Message-ID: 
 <CAPVVMa-8o0L0mpNNoA4w+zeyhKnZPTwXw+Oi-mKfFD24jf_DzA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Allowing another consumer to have a message (ActiveMQ-CPP)
To: ActiveMQ Users <users@activemq.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140eadae9b822051815bf76

--001a1140eadae9b822051815bf76
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

So why can't you use transactions?  Won't you get what you want if you
commit the transaction after every successful message and
rollback()/close() and then reconnect after every failed one?

Also is the app server going to fail to respond to *certain* messages, or
is it going to fail to respond to *any* messages?  If the latter, you can
delay the reconnect till you figure out that the web service is available
again.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:09 AM, spamtrap <
nospam.1.friedbadger@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 06:43:45 -0600, Tim Bain
> <tbain@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
>
> The situation is that the consumer gets a message from a queue and
> then converts into into a different format and sends it to an
> application server, which should respond with an acknowledgement
> message.  If the application server does not respond to a particular
> message then we want to be able to allow another ActiveMQ consumer to
> pick up the message and send it elsewhere.  Any consumer should be
> able to process the message so we don't want to use selectors.
>
> >In this scenario, do you want to consume it twice, or do you really want
> to
> >consume it once but you're picking which consumer gets it?  If the latter,
> >can you use selectors to make sure the right consumer gets the right
> >messages?  Or maybe an embedded Camel route to send those messages to a
> >queue that's specific to the consumer that should get them?
> >On Jun 9, 2015 6:00 AM, "spamtrap" <nospam.1.friedbadger@spamgourmet.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 07:24:24 -0400, Christopher Shannon
> >> <christopher.l.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The use case you are trying to achieve is probably best done by using a
> >> >transaction instead of individual acknowledgements.  If you call
> rollback
> >> >on the session then the message would be available to be redelivered to
> >> >another consumer.
> >>
> >> I don't think I can use a transaction because all messages are
> >> committed at once.  We need to be able to select which messages may be
> >> redelivered and which not, hence the individual acknowledge mode is
> >> used.
> >>
> >> Will the rollback work with individual acknowledgements?
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:50 AM, spamtrap <
> >> >nospam.1.friedbadger@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> In some cases we want to allow another consumer to consumer a message
> >> >> that has already been consumed.   The session is opened using
> >> >> INDIVIDUAL_ACKNOWLEDGE and the message has not been acknowledged.  I
> >> >> have tried closing the session where the message has been consumed
> but
> >> >> the message is not available to the other consumer.  How can I
> achieve
> >> >> what I need?
> >> >>
> >> >> TIA.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

--001a1140eadae9b822051815bf76--