Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-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 AD2C761F4 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:02:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 36815 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jun 2011 23:02:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 36753 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jun 2011 23:02:53 -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 36745 invoked by uid 99); 28 Jun 2011 23:02:53 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:02:53 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [216.32.181.185] (HELO CH1EHSOBE017.bigfish.com) (216.32.181.185) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:02:43 +0000 Received: from mail199-ch1-R.bigfish.com (216.32.181.174) by CH1EHSOBE017.bigfish.com (10.43.70.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:02:21 +0000 Received: from mail199-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail199-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE141320310 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:02:21 +0000 (UTC) X-SpamScore: 0 X-BigFish: VS0(zzzz1202hzzz2dh668h839h63h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 2:0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:173.12.30.67;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPVD:NLI;H:notes.princeton.com;RD:173-12-30-67-panjde.hfc.comcastbusiness.net;EFVD:NLI Received: from mail199-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail199-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1309302122279893_31826; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:02:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS004.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.246]) by mail199-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D0EE17F0051 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:02:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from notes.princeton.com (173.12.30.67) by CH1EHSMHS004.bigfish.com (10.43.70.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:02:01 +0000 To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Call to Session::acknowledge not acknowledging messages X-KeepSent: 5CAB3104:476BE1DC-852578BD:007DAA28; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.2 August 10, 2010 Message-ID: From: Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:01:56 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Notes/Princeton Consultants(Release 8.5.2FP2|March 22, 2011) at 06/28/2011 07:02:01 PM, Serialize complete at 06/28/2011 07:02:01 PM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 007E84AA852578BD_=" X-OriginatorOrg: princeton.com X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --=_alternative 007E84AA852578BD_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Under what conditions would a call to Session::acknowledge not acknowledge the received message(s)? As I mentioned earlier, I'm working on Python SWIG bindings, and my receiver is unable to acknowledge messages. I don't think it's an issue with the bindings, because I put so debug printing in qpid::messaging::Session::acknowledge (both versions), and it is getting called three times, once with the message, sync=false, then with no message, sync=false and finally with no message, sync=true. Yet, there is no message.accept in the wireshark traces. Is there a suggested place I should put my examples, patches to the bindings, and wireshark traces? (I would put the patches to the bindings in bug tracker, but they need to be better organized first.) -- Anthony Foglia Princeton Consultants (609) 987-8787 x233 --=_alternative 007E84AA852578BD_=--