From users-return-799-apmail-qpid-users-archive=qpid.apache.org@qpid.apache.org Wed Feb 11 02:35:53 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 29041 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2009 02:35:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Feb 2009 02:35:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 86679 invoked by uid 500); 11 Feb 2009 02:35:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 86662 invoked by uid 500); 11 Feb 2009 02:35:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@qpid.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@qpid.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 86651 invoked by uid 99); 11 Feb 2009 02:35:52 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:35:52 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of cctrieloff@redhat.com designates 66.187.237.31 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.187.237.31] (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 02:35:46 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1B2ZO30001313 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:35:24 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n1B2ZOdV010798 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:35:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn-10-3.bos.redhat.com [10.16.10.3]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1B2ZO0o031267 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:35:24 -0500 Message-ID: <4992389F.6080009@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:31:59 -0500 From: Carl Trieloff Reply-To: cctrieloff@redhat.com Organization: Red Hat User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: users@qpid.apache.org Subject: Re: different release behavior in M4 CPP? References: <17e364b30902101437o239dc90di2385aabe726f36b3@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <17e364b30902101437o239dc90di2385aabe726f36b3@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000901010704030106000901" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on 172.16.27.26 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --------------000901010704030106000901 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'll try take a look tomorrow (if someone else does not to it first) -- in lots of meetings this week. Carl. Adam Chase wrote: > The way I am implementing failback using qpid is to release a message > when I detect that the other consumer is available again via a > message. > > When I release the message, the other consumer isn't getting it. > > If I add some credit to myself I get it again and then the next time > the other consumer gets it. If I kill the first consumer, the second > gets the message immediately. > > Is this a bug or intentional? Is there a workaround? > > I have attached some code. > > The idea is to publish 1 message to a queue and 2 consumers. The > second consumer should get it once the first releases it. > > If I should be doing this another way, please let me know. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:users-subscribe@qpid.apache.org --------------000901010704030106000901--