Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE60B200D20 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:03:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id BCC771609EB; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:03:56 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 07CEA1609DE for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:03:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 44702 invoked by uid 500); 17 Oct 2017 10:03:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 44690 invoked by uid 99); 17 Oct 2017 10:03:54 -0000 Received: from git1-us-west.apache.org (HELO git1-us-west.apache.org) (140.211.11.23) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:03:54 +0000 Received: by git1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at git1-us-west.apache.org, from userid 33) id 0091BDFAE3; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:03:53 +0000 (UTC) From: gemmellr To: dev@activemq.apache.org Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org References: In-Reply-To: Subject: [GitHub] activemq-artemis issue #1590: ARTEMIS-1464 Fix Core to AMQP conversion Bytes... Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <20171017100354.0091BDFAE3@git1-us-west.apache.org> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:03:53 +0000 (UTC) archived-at: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:03:56 -0000 Github user gemmellr commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1590 The AMQP JMS mapping is in part around getting any different AMQP JMS implementations behaving consistently with each other, it could as easily say use amqp-value, or say use either. The JMS mapping/client also copes with receiving either, see the recieving side mapping details later in the doc. There is nothing wrong with the broker sending amqp-value sections, and other clients might prefer that. It seems entirely unrelated to the actual defect here, so I'd leave it the way it is, but even if it were changed I would actually separate it out as its own specific change. ---