Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 30675 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2010 15:05:16 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 2010 15:05:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 46212 invoked by uid 500); 22 Feb 2010 15:05:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 46170 invoked by uid 500); 22 Feb 2010 15:05:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 46160 invoked by uid 99); 22 Feb 2010 15:05:15 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:05:15 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:05:06 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NjZq1-0001Mh-OZ for users@activemq.apache.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:04:45 -0800 Message-ID: <27688649.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:04:45 -0800 (PST) From: "bob.deremer" To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Is it safe to extend ActiveMQObjectMessage to work-around the default object serialization? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: bob.deremer@burningskysoftware.com X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi AMQ experts, I posted a question last week, but haven't had any replies yet [ http://old.nabble.com/URGENT-QUESTION:-AMQ-5.3.0-bug-or-configuration-error------ObjectMessage-is--still--being-serialized-when-using-setObjectMessageSerializationDefered-and-setCopyMessageOnSend-td27654579.html http://old.nabble.com/URGENT-QUESTION:-AMQ-5.3.0-bug-or-configuration-error------ObjectMessage-is--still--being-serialized-when-using-setObjectMessageSerializationDefered-and-setCopyMessageOnSend-td27654579.html ]. As a workaround, I've decided to implement my own ActiveMQ message that extends ActiveMQObjectMessage. My goal was to override the default serialization that is happening when an object message is sent via vm:// transport so that only the object reference is passed around. Can someone tell me if there are any inherent problems with this? So far, my solution seems to be working functionally, but my gut tells me that there's a lot I am probably not aware of happening inside AMQ(s) message dispatching. I've been debugging the AMQ 5.3 source over the past couple days - which is how I found the issue in the related link. Ideally, I'd like to know if what I mention in the other link is a bug, or if there is a reason ObjectMessage(s) are being serialized - even when I set the flags to not serialize them. Thanks for any help/clarification, Bob -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Is-it-safe-to-extend-ActiveMQObjectMessage-to-work-around-the-default-object-serialization--tp27688649p27688649.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.