Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of rajdavies@gmail.com designates
 64.233.182.191 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer;
        b=B5eS3eEJQD9tTaxFsNExx6eHdnqbaCC+2LjvHeo+gCpWspWSekzBgHG64MCAXDMe2cJme95J2ZRtkFxjb+MyCiHKW8fKv97jLAumd+8QZDI0Tp2DxEIrQaGT6XV51ZXDZ0/rrQBen5rX8gK6eEduHX7ql+4TN1EEWCQYbiq0Ftk=
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <620E2AF6-4809-4CB4-ACF5-2EBE750318E6@planet57.com>
References: <af2843cd0702242343x705155e7o2a6110af4d6dc698@mail.gmail.com>
 <4A82F8FB-213E-4AEB-A62C-1C31F2DB63EA@gmail.com>
 <620E2AF6-4809-4CB4-ACF5-2EBE750318E6@planet57.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <7F4AB41C-1339-4416-89F4-ED39E6EC0A84@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Rob Davies <rajdavies@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Do we really have to set a timestamp on the broker?
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:09:03 +0000
To: dev@activemq.apache.org

exactly! but its sunday mornin :) - don't expect clarity of thought -  
yet!

On 25 Feb 2007, at 08:04, Jason Dillon wrote:

> Why not optional with a different property, so that the spec  
> behavior is always consistent, but users can still get the custom  
> data they need if the broker has some flag flipped on?
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Rob Davies wrote:
>
>> It was requested by a some users - they wanted to compare messages  
>> from different producers on different machines by time sent - and  
>> as the clients clocks aren't in sync, they really needed the  
>> timestamp set on the broker. I guess the best thing to do would to  
>> make it optional, off by default
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On 25 Feb 2007, at 07:43, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>
>>> Rob, do you remember why added the following feature?
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=376260
>>>
>>> Setting the time on a message can break JMS spec compliance, plus it
>>> forces us to have the overhead of getting the system time on every
>>> message sent.   I was hoping we could roll this one back.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Regards,
>>> Hiram
>>>
>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>
>