You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@servicemix.apache.org by samg <sa...@wellogic.com> on 2007/06/19 18:27:47 UTC
Re: replies to JMS and recoverability
Hello again.
I've finally gotten time allocated to deal with this issue (a bit of a
delay, I know).. would it still make sense for me to fix this as I suggested
originally, or has something else been done that makes this moot? Which new
endpoints do you refer to?
Regards,
Sam
gnodet wrote:
>
> Agreed. Though we need the patch for the standard / multiplexing
> providers. I'd rather finish the new endpoints (InOut support has not
> been
> written yet), but patches are always welcome.
>
>
> On 3/20/07, samg <sa...@wellogic.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>> Am I right in thinking that a servicemix-jms provider endpoint can't be
>> used
>> in a situation requiring recovery from failure (with a system running on
>> a
>> single node)? From looking at the behavior in this kind of test, and the
>> source of StandardProviderProcessor, it appears that the temporary queue
>> that is created precludes the possibility of continuing to process the
>> messages held in the non-temporary queue when the server goes down. It
>> seems relatively simple to add a "reply-to" property to the Provider
>> endpoint, allowing the use of another non-temporary queue- does this
>> approach make sense? I'd be happy to do it and contribute a patch.
>> Sam
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/replies-to-JMS-and-recoverability-tf3431435s12049.html#a9565929
>> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Architect, LogicBlaze (http://www.logicblaze.com/)
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/replies-to-JMS-and-recoverability-tf3431435s12049.html#a11198224
Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: replies to JMS and recoverability
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
Just create a patch against 3.1.1 so that we can apply it
for next version and attach it to a JIRA issue please.
On 6/20/07, samg <sa...@wellogic.com> wrote:
>
>
> Okay, I'll make this change then. I'll need to do it in both the standard
> and multiplexing provider, in 3.1 and 3.1.1, correct?
> Thanks,
> Sam
>
>
> gnodet wrote:
> >
> > I was referring to the new endpoints that are being developed for next
> > (3.2)
> > version of ServiceMix.
> > They are not released yet, but are more stable and more powerful that
> the
> > previous one (jms:endpoint).
> > These are jms:provider and jms:consumer mainly.
> >
> > On 6/19/07, samg <sa...@wellogic.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello again.
> >> I've finally gotten time allocated to deal with this issue (a bit of a
> >> delay, I know).. would it still make sense for me to fix this as I
> >> suggested
> >> originally, or has something else been done that makes this
> moot? Which
> >> new
> >> endpoints do you refer to?
> >> Regards,
> >> Sam
> >>
> >>
> >> gnodet wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Agreed. Though we need the patch for the standard / multiplexing
> >> > providers. I'd rather finish the new endpoints (InOut support has
> not
> >> > been
> >> > written yet), but patches are always welcome.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 3/20/07, samg <sa...@wellogic.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> Am I right in thinking that a servicemix-jms provider endpoint can't
> >> be
> >> >> used
> >> >> in a situation requiring recovery from failure (with a system
> running
> >> on
> >> >> a
> >> >> single node)? From looking at the behavior in this kind of test,
> and
> >> the
> >> >> source of StandardProviderProcessor, it appears that the temporary
> >> queue
> >> >> that is created precludes the possibility of continuing to process
> the
> >> >> messages held in the non-temporary queue when the server goes down.
> >> It
> >> >> seems relatively simple to add a "reply-to" property to the Provider
> >> >> endpoint, allowing the use of another non-temporary queue- does this
> >> >> approach make sense? I'd be happy to do it and contribute a patch.
> >> >> Sam
> >> >> --
> >> >> View this message in context:
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/replies-to-JMS-and-recoverability-tf3431435s12049.html#a9565929
> >> >> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Guillaume Nodet
> >> > ------------------------
> >> > Architect, LogicBlaze (http://www.logicblaze.com/)
> >> > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/replies-to-JMS-and-recoverability-tf3431435s12049.html#a11198224
> >> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Guillaume Nodet
> > ------------------------
> > Principal Engineer, IONA
> > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/replies-to-JMS-and-recoverability-tf3431435s12049.html#a11213183
> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Principal Engineer, IONA
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
Re: replies to JMS and recoverability
Posted by samg <sa...@wellogic.com>.
Okay, I'll make this change then. I'll need to do it in both the standard
and multiplexing provider, in 3.1 and 3.1.1, correct?
Thanks,
Sam
gnodet wrote:
>
> I was referring to the new endpoints that are being developed for next
> (3.2)
> version of ServiceMix.
> They are not released yet, but are more stable and more powerful that the
> previous one (jms:endpoint).
> These are jms:provider and jms:consumer mainly.
>
> On 6/19/07, samg <sa...@wellogic.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello again.
>> I've finally gotten time allocated to deal with this issue (a bit of a
>> delay, I know).. would it still make sense for me to fix this as I
>> suggested
>> originally, or has something else been done that makes this moot? Which
>> new
>> endpoints do you refer to?
>> Regards,
>> Sam
>>
>>
>> gnodet wrote:
>> >
>> > Agreed. Though we need the patch for the standard / multiplexing
>> > providers. I'd rather finish the new endpoints (InOut support has not
>> > been
>> > written yet), but patches are always welcome.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 3/20/07, samg <sa...@wellogic.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >> Am I right in thinking that a servicemix-jms provider endpoint can't
>> be
>> >> used
>> >> in a situation requiring recovery from failure (with a system running
>> on
>> >> a
>> >> single node)? From looking at the behavior in this kind of test, and
>> the
>> >> source of StandardProviderProcessor, it appears that the temporary
>> queue
>> >> that is created precludes the possibility of continuing to process the
>> >> messages held in the non-temporary queue when the server goes down.
>> It
>> >> seems relatively simple to add a "reply-to" property to the Provider
>> >> endpoint, allowing the use of another non-temporary queue- does this
>> >> approach make sense? I'd be happy to do it and contribute a patch.
>> >> Sam
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context:
>> >>
>> http://www.nabble.com/replies-to-JMS-and-recoverability-tf3431435s12049.html#a9565929
>> >> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cheers,
>> > Guillaume Nodet
>> > ------------------------
>> > Architect, LogicBlaze (http://www.logicblaze.com/)
>> > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/replies-to-JMS-and-recoverability-tf3431435s12049.html#a11198224
>> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Principal Engineer, IONA
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/replies-to-JMS-and-recoverability-tf3431435s12049.html#a11213183
Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: replies to JMS and recoverability
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
I was referring to the new endpoints that are being developed for next (3.2)
version of ServiceMix.
They are not released yet, but are more stable and more powerful that the
previous one (jms:endpoint).
These are jms:provider and jms:consumer mainly.
On 6/19/07, samg <sa...@wellogic.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello again.
> I've finally gotten time allocated to deal with this issue (a bit of a
> delay, I know).. would it still make sense for me to fix this as I
> suggested
> originally, or has something else been done that makes this moot? Which
> new
> endpoints do you refer to?
> Regards,
> Sam
>
>
> gnodet wrote:
> >
> > Agreed. Though we need the patch for the standard / multiplexing
> > providers. I'd rather finish the new endpoints (InOut support has not
> > been
> > written yet), but patches are always welcome.
> >
> >
> > On 3/20/07, samg <sa...@wellogic.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> Am I right in thinking that a servicemix-jms provider endpoint can't be
> >> used
> >> in a situation requiring recovery from failure (with a system running
> on
> >> a
> >> single node)? From looking at the behavior in this kind of test, and
> the
> >> source of StandardProviderProcessor, it appears that the temporary
> queue
> >> that is created precludes the possibility of continuing to process the
> >> messages held in the non-temporary queue when the server goes down. It
> >> seems relatively simple to add a "reply-to" property to the Provider
> >> endpoint, allowing the use of another non-temporary queue- does this
> >> approach make sense? I'd be happy to do it and contribute a patch.
> >> Sam
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/replies-to-JMS-and-recoverability-tf3431435s12049.html#a9565929
> >> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Guillaume Nodet
> > ------------------------
> > Architect, LogicBlaze (http://www.logicblaze.com/)
> > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/replies-to-JMS-and-recoverability-tf3431435s12049.html#a11198224
> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Principal Engineer, IONA
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/