Shall we also check how the other brokers handle this ? The JMS 2.0 specification mentions that the restriction of not allowing shared topic subscriptions was removed because "it did not allow sharing of work among multiple connections, threads or JVMs" (JMS_SPEC-40). Thus even though not explicitly mentioned, could we assume that the consumers sharing the subscription are from different connections and thus from different sessions and JMSContexts?
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Maryam Ziyad <mary...@wso2.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > We have implemented support for basic functionality with JMS 2.0 as > proposed [1]. > > This includes partial support for JMSContext, JMSProducer and JMSConsumer > with support for: > > - Simple synchronous send/receive > - Asynchronous receive > - Durable subscription > > We will now be working on providing the new functionality introduced with > JMS 2.0 including shared subscriptions. > > *Shared Subscription* > > While the JMS 1.1 API did not allow multiple consumers to share a single > subscription on a topic, this capability was allowed by MB 3.x.x, via a > configuration in broker.xml [2]. Now, with JMS 2.0, shared subscription is > to be allowed on topics at API level. > > The JMS 2.0 specification mentions that the restriction of not allowing > shared topic subscriptions was removed because "it did not allow sharing of > work among multiple connections, threads or JVMs" (JMS_SPEC-40). Thus even > though not explicitly mentioned, could we assume that the consumers sharing > the subscription are from different connections and thus from different > sessions and JMSContexts? > > In the existing shared consumer implementation in MB 3.x.x, each consumer > sharing the subscription needs to be created from a separate session. > Assuming that there would not be cases where we would use the same > JMSContext/Session to create shared subscribers, providing support for > shared subscription with JMS 2.0 could be directly based on the existing > implementation. > > Feedback on the above would be highly appreciated. > > [1] https://github.com/wso2/andes/pull/907 > [2] https://docs.wso2.com/display/MB320/Creating+Durable+Top > ic+Subscriptions > > Thank you, > Maryam > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Maryam Ziyad <mary...@wso2.com> wrote: > >> Hi Pamod, >> >> Will there be any frame definitions we might need to change in the >>> existing AMQP 0_91 to work with JMS 2.0 ? >>> >> >> We have not had to modify any frames so far, to provide basic support for >> JMS 2.0. However since we are still to implement the new functionality >> provided by JMS 2.0, we may have to modify the frame definitions to support >> them. >> >> I will update the thread with any modifications required. >> >> Thank you, >> Maryam >> -- >> *Maryam Ziyad Mohamed* >> Software Engineer | WSO2 >> [image: http://wso2.com/signature] <http://wso2.com/signature> >> > > > > -- > *Maryam Ziyad Mohamed* > Software Engineer | WSO2 > [image: http://wso2.com/signature] <http://wso2.com/signature> > > _______________________________________________ > Architecture mailing list > Architecture@wso2.org > https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture > > -- *Pamod Sylvester * *WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.com <http://wso2.com>* cell: +94 77 7779495
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list Architecture@wso2.org https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
