Return-Path: 
 <users-return-7887-apmail-qpid-users-archive=qpid.apache.org@qpid.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 049C8E7CA
	for <apmail-qpid-users-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:14:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 90505 invoked by uid 500); 15 Mar 2013 22:14:15 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@qpid.apache.org
Received: (qmail 90408 invoked by uid 500); 15 Mar 2013 22:14:15 -0000
Mailing-List: contact users-help@qpid.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:users-help@qpid.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:users@qpid.apache.org>
List-Id: <users.qpid.apache.org>
Reply-To: users@qpid.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list users@qpid.apache.org
Received: (qmail 90397 invoked by uid 99); 15 Mar 2013 22:14:15 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:14:15 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of robbie.gemmell@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.52 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.214.52] (HELO mail-bk0-f52.google.com) (209.85.214.52)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:14:10 +0000
Received: by mail-bk0-f52.google.com with SMTP id jk13so1716445bkc.39
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
         :subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=0eH9lpFQrjaBsUjGg3ZQbkECCbfb1Cugh51ZpeyenzY=;
        b=Wx95Fuc9u5ynNeD8ZE9B1m9uWUeiy2Ysa8Ss068YCGqBD6QbD77Ii3F2wAjriHrSae
         S5YT5z3NA+G7DN4PWofpEWPhKH80WxxRpnybRkhk6oDd7hCt2ADBUwRH6FMvKAEkaa/9
         zGvhCEzXdwJZyM3ZKHq8TfeHwGLyl6nPqljTHVChtRaJ3qoBVgtl+OyQ9AqU9jpOzUxA
         oLvRiiQF+cVFjdjAUhu0Y/vRUXqL9lzxNUCwtdjwVOOz6iA1hoK13rskWV+ZnEg+Gz6u
         jzyvPTLa8IMPG7Qc4+YhjnwBqgQpquLm9Mp5pAI7o4jFhcdeneaPUwVMqPi16wAShq6W
         jBpQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.204.201.1 with SMTP id ey1mr3804211bkb.84.1363385628706;
 Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.205.97.5 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+M2XzuzsHfyb1zZC+jAM9RGKWUo5m7OzmSSObVXWtEm9cNw9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+M2XzuzsHfyb1zZC+jAM9RGKWUo5m7OzmSSObVXWtEm9cNw9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:13:48 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CAFitrpRxyMezDg3Oet=y=_dd-ZMvSXbyktNwi4kH4YSek259SA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Comparing two JMS Destinations created using address strings.
From: Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
To: "dev@qpid.apache.org" <dev@qpid.apache.org>
Cc: "users@qpid.apache.org" <users@qpid.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=485b3970d5ce17831e04d7fdf44b
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--485b3970d5ce17831e04d7fdf44b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Personally I would probably go for option 2, though I see the existing
comparison (presumably for the old BindingURLs) was already similarly
lacking.

At the very least I think the comment Alex made on the JIRA around the
'subject' from the Address string needs to be addressed. I seem to recall
from reviewing a different change at some point, I noted that not
specifying an exchange within an Address made it default to use of the
amq.topic exchange somewhere under the covers. That suggests that after the
change which has been made, for many users session.createTopic(<simple
topic name>) could have unexpectedly started returning a lot of different
Topic objects that always say they are equal when they are clearly not
expected to be.

Robbie

On 11 March 2013 21:04, Rajith Attapattu <rajith77@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> While fixing QPID-3769, I came across this issue.
>
> There are two options for implementing the equals method (and hashcode).
>
> 1. Check the "type" and "name" to ensure they both point to the same
> "destination" (which could be a queue or an exchange in pre 1.0
> terms).
>
> 2. Do a comprehensive check on the internal address data structure to
> ensure that all fields, properties, options are the same.
>
> (Please note that comparing two address strings is not a good idea as
> there can whitespaces).
>
> I prefer option one and have pasted the patch as a comment on the JIRA
>
> What do others think?
>
> Regards,
>
> Rajith
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>

--485b3970d5ce17831e04d7fdf44b--