qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Godfrey <rob.j.godf...@gmail.com>
Subject Questions on Addresses
Date Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:47:33 GMT
While I was working on adding addressing support to the JMS 0-9-1 client
[1] and looking at how I might implement a subscription where the
subscription was to a set of queues (rather than a single queue) [2], I
came across a couple of issues with the address implementation that I think
I should probably discuss before I go ahead an "fix" them.

Firstly the addressing syntax definition in
defines the following:

x-subscribe: { ... <subscribe-overrides> ... }

However the JMS client looks for x-subscribes (note the plural).  I presume
this is just a mistake and should be corrected (though probably allowing
the pluralised version for backward compatibility).

Secondly I would think that an address which explicitly or implicitly
defines its assertion policy to be "never" should not fail in the act of
creation if the node does not exist (otherwise what is the point of assert:
never ).  However it seems that the JMS client always explicitly tests for
the presence of either a queue or an exchange and if it finds neither (even
if the policy is assert" never) it fails.  Moreover there are tests
checking this behaviour.  I would like to change this behaviour also, as it
prevents the creation of subscriptions to pseudo-nodes which are not queues
or exchanges (for instance the multi queue subscription case).  Clearly the
act of attempting to subscribe to something the broker cannot resolve will
still result in an error on the broker side, which seems to me the expected
behaviour of assert: never.


-- Rob

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-6037

[2]  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-6040

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message