Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
From: jbertram <git@git.apache.org>
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
References: <git-pr-1539-activemq-artemis@git.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <git-pr-1539-activemq-artemis@git.apache.org>
Subject: [GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #1539: MQTT work
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <20170918134038.88211F3304@git1-us-west.apache.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:40:38 +0000 (UTC)
archived-at: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:40:40 -0000

Github user jbertram commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1539#discussion_r139424530
  
    --- Diff: artemis-protocols/artemis-mqtt-protocol/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/core/protocol/mqtt/MQTTProtocolManager.java ---
    @@ -172,4 +177,8 @@ public void invokeIncoming(MqttMessage mqttMessage, MQTTConnection connection) {
        public void invokeOutgoing(MqttMessage mqttMessage, MQTTConnection connection) {
           super.invokeInterceptors(this.outgoingInterceptors, mqttMessage, connection);
        }
    +
    +   public Map<String, MQTTConnection> getConnectedClients() {
    +      return connectedClients;
    --- End diff --
    
    If I returned an immutable view of the map then I wouldn't be able to actually update it which would break org.apache.activemq.artemis.core.protocol.mqtt.MQTTConnectionManager#validateClientId.  I could add a new method (e.g. addConnectedClient(String, MQTTConnection)), but I don't see much benefit of doing that over what's happening now.


---