Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 55101 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2009 06:24:29 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2009 06:24:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 44561 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2009 06:24:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 44497 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2009 06:24:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 44485 invoked by uid 99); 5 Nov 2009 06:24:28 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:24:28 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of claus.ibsen@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.211 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.218.211] (HELO mail-bw0-f211.google.com) (209.85.218.211) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:24:17 +0000 Received: by bwz3 with SMTP id 3so10743986bwz.36 for ; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:23:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hGI/YuMKceslSQNNxSUVPKwzCdxkhyE6WEUJbEQZ1a4=; b=LSbePuulwTDp3BI/ImLyvQebo7tZ74LnnGH+E8l5QzHPp8imlvaXoMoBbDKhvpn0rZ AjrST9nUE1m/F7ZkQ1sfPziwOLlyoPnmMfEHMnxDE2XxqR9+iONiidzfen/+2q/AMrsF pl0Vd7ABz6hKYUvmhpG+vK+eCcPQSBzJYUQKc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=p3nkA0j+arHCfSrNkXTDBBaMnIP51oz3+7M+NcqfMrL6IW1f5HhdYRFg6B4K8zqNoT rt+jg/XG1u6IMXQ7KGLQ2/5OMNPP08W7wm+zzfTgLKY9ZMNsA5RxzEKfslMa2EJedvOe 4Rgh/HHUambO3ZrblssLaWw522ZKW96DHqwPY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.153.220 with SMTP id l28mr2562310bkw.86.1257402237118; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:23:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <26206508.post@talk.nabble.com> References: <26202573.post@talk.nabble.com> <4AF1D4C4.7090207@die-schneider.net> <5380c69c0911041240s3e0cf124mb3e76036824394f5@mail.gmail.com> <26206508.post@talk.nabble.com> From: Claus Ibsen Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:23:37 +0100 Message-ID: <5380c69c0911042223v24f7e8e7lb9da6a1187d35835@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: guaranteed message processing question... To: users@camel.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi Do you use persistent queues? Then make sure the queues are empty when testing. Maybe deleting the AMQ data folder before testing. On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:23 AM, boday wrote: > > thanks guys. =A0I added some parameters to the queue to make the route > "transactional"... > > from("activemq:inboundMessages?maxConcurrentConsumers=3D50&lazyCreateTran= sactionManager=3Dtrue&transacted=3Dtrue") > .process(new Processor1()) > .process(new Processor2()) > .to("activemq:finishedQueue"); > > Now I'm getting duplicates delivered. =A0My test pumped 10k messages into= the > queue via an external client. =A0During the test, I restarted SMX 2 times= . > After the test concluded, I had 10,003 messages in the finishedQueue. =A0= This > is better than losing messages, but still not the desired behavior...any > ideas? > > One more question, what happens during exception handling? =A0Suppose I h= ave > the following policy to retry 3 times, then go to an error queue... > > onException(Exception.class).handled(true).maximumRedeliveries(3).to("act= ivemq:errorQueue"); > > I assume the message is still in the inbound queue until either delivered= to > the finished queue or error queue, correct? =A0So at any given time the s= um of > the inbound, finished and error queues should equal to the number of > messages sent, correct? > > I'm working on a unit test for this now, but wanted to make sure I > understood the intended behavior first... > > thanks in advance > > > ----- > Ben - Senior Consultant > > -- > View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/guaranteed-message-pr= ocessing-question...-tp26202573p26206508.html > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > --=20 Claus Ibsen Apache Camel Committer Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/ Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus