Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 20696 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2006 00:25:06 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Jun 2006 00:25:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 70781 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jun 2006 00:25:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 70753 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jun 2006 00:25:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact activemq-dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 70744 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jun 2006 00:25:05 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:25:05 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of chirino@gmail.com designates 66.249.92.173 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.173] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.173) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:25:02 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m3so657589uge for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:24:41 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=N+I6kt58y0rRiYSn+tYbaT4Dgse63lFrhyBoQB2fk2cbnjlytuA/OEzMoXO9o9E80eqbQu1E/CGUNjy7pUrbu/I9rooRlM+YFy16OjZDSfAYyxHfFbKJ2D4l/jtD4ApcZQOSg+qoCuA6fzEgDLvpxFD5MvMiYoZ/WoUYv4zC7BQ= Received: by 10.67.19.13 with SMTP id w13mr1192555ugi; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.237.18 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:24:41 -0400 From: "Hiram Chirino" Sender: chirino@gmail.com To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Nested MapMessage In-Reply-To: <4875002.post@talk.nabble.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <4872274.post@talk.nabble.com> <4873966.post@talk.nabble.com> <4875002.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 83b276a5ddeb94d0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hum. Wouldn't it be just as useful if a Map as used as the 2nd argument instead of a MapMessage? I'm just thinking that MapMessage has alot more overhead than a simple MAP. On 6/14/06, jhakim wrote: > > The JMS MapMessage API already contains the method setObject(name, val). For > nested MapMessage, the second argument - val - would simply be a MapMessage. > No need to clutter the API with yet another method. By the way, this is just > what TIBCO EMS provides. > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Nested-MapMessage-t1788442.html#a4875002 > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev forum at Nabble.com. > > -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com