Mailing-List: contact users-help@qpid.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@qpid.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52CDB4B1.3000706@blueyonder.co.uk>
References: <1389206288382-7602408.post@n2.nabble.com>
	<CACsaS96WvMKWx7pmBxTz2pdY35GZ=NFtpO4wckOriSZwBPQUjg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52CDB4B1.3000706@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 21:41:41 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CACsaS94XFgsydU2w12NbV5oAWwizHXoshzy_O2V4bA4hNWNWMw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Serious Bug in AMQP 1.0 JMS Client with persistent messages
From: Rob Godfrey <rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com>
To: "users@qpid.apache.org" <users@qpid.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135ec94379d5304ef7b8500

--001a1135ec94379d5304ef7b8500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 8 January 2014 21:27, Fraser Adams <fraser.adams@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> On 08/01/14 18:55, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>
>> Hi Uli,
>>
>> To enable synchronous publishing you need to either set the Java system
>> property "qpid.sync_publish" to true, or have sync-publish=true as one of
>> the URL options in your connection URL.
>>
>> I agree it should be the default, and we can look to change this in a
>> future release.
>>
>
> Hmm, I'd really rather you didn't do that. Async behaviour has been the
> default behaviour with Qpid from year dot. so changing it is pretty likely
> to bite someone nastily.
>
> I'd agree that async behaviour technically means that by default Qpid
> breaches JMS guarantees, but TBH I think it's a little late in the day now
> to be going switching the default. It's also make the default behaviour
> inconsistent with qpid::messaging which doesn't seem ideal.
>
>
Given this is a totally separate client, (and is vastly different in many
other ways - like different connection URLs, different address formats,
etc.) and it's probably being used more widely against non-qpid
brokers/services than it is against Qpid right now, then I'm not sure I'm
too worried about refleting the behaviour of the AMQP 0-8/9/9-1/10 client.
I think the bigger issue in switching the default right now is that it
would seem that it would break anyone trying to use it with ActiveMQ.


> As we've discussed before not everyone has guaranteed delivery right up
> there at the top end of things they give a damn about, in my case it's all
> about performance and I can take the hit if I lose the odd message - plenty
> more where they came from :-) I probably wouldn't be wildly amused to
> upgrade to Qpid version "x" only to find a massive performance regression
> that might force me to get a non-trivial number of clients to change some
> bit of config. or other.
>
>
The "intelligent" change would be to only use syn publishing with
persistent but non-transactional messaging.  If you are using transient you
clearly aren't looking for guaranteed delivery anyway.  If you are using
transation, you get your guarantee at the commit.  This is the "expected"
behaviour for JMS (though most implementations offer a switch to turn it
off so people can get better performance... in which case you have to
wonder why they are using persistent messaging in the first place)....

Anyway given the issues with ActiveMQ - I won't be changing it for the
moment anyways.

-- Rob


> Frase
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>

--001a1135ec94379d5304ef7b8500--