Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23CD2200B67 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 20:06:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 20F47160AA8; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:06:06 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 677CD160A74 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 20:06:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 52031 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2016 18:06:04 -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 52011 invoked by uid 99); 16 Aug 2016 18:06:03 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:06:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 362441A05D0 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:06:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.437 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.289, HTML_MESSAGE=2, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A4eAYKGeFi0e for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:06:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from em-mxp03.saic.com (EM-MXP03.saic.com [192.103.128.48]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id C0A235F4E9 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:06:01 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,529,1464670800"; d="scan'208,217";a="132767029" X-SAIC-EXTERNAL-IP: [10.16.180.55] Received: from unknown (HELO EM-EXMRP102.us.saic.com) ([10.16.180.55]) by em-mxp03.saic.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 16 Aug 2016 13:05:55 -0500 Received: from EM-EXMRP101.us.saic.com ([fe80::74da:8127:bd28:a960]) by EM-EXMRP102.us.saic.com ([fe80::a022:9677:ceb4:2196%24]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 13:05:54 -0500 From: "Flores, Paul A." To: "users@qpid.apache.org" Subject: C++ Messaging API Question: Receiver Capacity? Thread-Topic: C++ Messaging API Question: Receiver Capacity? Thread-Index: AdH35F3DGxmQg4TfRtOG+38pHpKI1Q== Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:05:53 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.243.32.22] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DEF2031F60ECAC4DB47A8AB7015CF86E05494C31EMEXMRP101ussai_" MIME-Version: 1.0 archived-at: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:06:06 -0000 --_000_DEF2031F60ECAC4DB47A8AB7015CF86E05494C31EMEXMRP101ussai_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At Client Site, An interesting question has come up regarding how setting the receiver's ca= pacity influences receiver processing. In one "reading" of the API documentation regarding set capacity an "impres= sion" or "inference" has been arrived at and I have been asked to either co= nfirm or refute. The "impression" /"inference" is as follows. Given: 1. The queue , "A", has been "instantiated". 2. Various senders have placed 6 messages onto the queue "A". A receiver for queue "A" with a capacity of 10 is created. When a fetch is performed . The receiver process "waits" until there are = 10 messages on the broker and when the capacity has been meet loads the mes= sages into a local queue providing one message to the "caller" for each fet= ch and goes back out to the brokers to obtain subsequent messages when the = local queue is depleted. Is this "impression"/"inference" correct? I believe that the "impression"/"inference" is incorrect and that the recei= ver process "obtains" all 6 messages into a local queue providing one messa= ge to the "caller" for each fetch and goes back out to the brokers to obtai= n subsequent messages up to the receiver capacity when the local queue is d= epleted. Insights, clarifications and comments are appreciated. Paul ________________________________ This communication (including any attachments) may contain information that= is proprietary, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the= intended recipient, please note that further dissemination, distribution, = use or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who rec= eived this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telepho= ne or by return email and delete it from his or her computer. --_000_DEF2031F60ECAC4DB47A8AB7015CF86E05494C31EMEXMRP101ussai_--