Github user gtully commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1820#discussion_r164162902
--- Diff:
artemis-jms-client/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/jms/client/ActiveMQSession.java
---
@@ -698,8 +699,17 @@ private ActiveMQMessageConsumer createConsumer(final
ActiveMQDestination dest,
*/
if (!response.isExists() ||
!response.getQueueNames().contains(dest.getSimpleAddress())) {
if (response.isAutoCreateQueues()) {
+ SimpleString queueNameToUse = dest.getSimpleAddress();
+ SimpleString addressToUse = queueNameToUse;
+ RoutingType routingTypeToUse = RoutingType.ANYCAST;
+ if
(CompositeAddress.isFullyQualified(queueNameToUse.toString())) {
+ CompositeAddress compositeAddress =
CompositeAddress.getQueueName(queueNameToUse.toString());
+ addressToUse = new
SimpleString(compositeAddress.getAddress());
+ queueNameToUse = new
SimpleString(compositeAddress.getQueueName());
+ routingTypeToUse = RoutingType.MULTICAST;
--- End diff --
The original test case that I added to, had both artemis and openwire jms
clients in the mix, a parameterised test. It may be that the vt use case needs
to be constrained to openwire because I think your expectation is correct. I
guess in the case that the address already existed I may be able to find the
routing type there.
But when both address and queue need to be created core would be out of
luck.
---
