"gaohoward" wrote :
| 1. consumers of strict ordered messages cannot receive second message without first
being acknowledged.
|
I don't agree. For ordering there is no requirement that previous message is acked
first - that's an implementation detail. The only requirement is that messages are
delivered in order.
anonymous wrote :
| 2. If we can guarantee strict ordering, there is no need to nail the ordered messages
to one consumer. Consider if there are two consumers on one queue that deliver ordered
messages. If one consumer gets a failure situation and is not able to consume anymore, the
current message will not be acked (or will be rolled back), the other consumer may take
over the job (as backup) and continue working (it may call session.recover() first). Will
message group allow that happen?
|
Yes, with message grouping, if a consumer closes, another consumer will get pinned to that
group.
anonymous wrote :
| 3. If user only wants message group, he shouldn't pay the performance cost brought
by strict ordering.
|
What performance penalty is that?
anonymous wrote :
| 4. In failover and cluster cases, message group and strict ordering are handled
differently. Consumer identity is critical for a message group to survive a failure, but
sequence is vital to ordering.
|
I didn't understand this last point. Can you elaborate?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4194578#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...