@Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> I mean that I like your proposal to have the property in the divert
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 18:14, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > @dom Anton had added an address setting. > > Perhaps we could have the property in the divert instead ? > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 4:01 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino < > bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 for the new divert setting proposed by Clebert > > > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 18:15, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > I think we should do 1. > > > at that point we look for the address-settings on auto-create, if > > > auto-create is on, we should then create it. > > > > > > > > > However, to unlock the situation for those who may disagree.. Can't we > > > add a Setting to the Divert itself. > > > > > > we could have a boolean on the Divert deployment on check-auto-create > > > flags... and only do that logic if such flag is on? > > > > > > > > > that way you could also bypass any additional checks for those who > > > don't need the functionality. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 5:30 AM Roskvist Anton < > anton.roskv...@volvo.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I'm working on a feature for Artemis where the use-case is the > ability > > > to compute or alter a messages destination through a divert. In doing > so > > > there is a possibility that the new destination might not exist on the > > > broker. There is some debate around how to handle this. > > > > > > > > The current behavior is to silently drop the messages in this > scenario. > > > > > > > > There are currently two proposed solutions: > > > > > > > > 1. Handle it with the already existing "auto-create" logic, which is > > > subject to the address settings auto-create-addresses and > > > auto-create-queues. > > > > -Downside is that this might break a pre-existing use-case where > these > > > messages are expected to fail. > > > > > > > > 2. Gate the same functionality with a new address-setting like: > > > "auto-create-divert-destinantions" > > > > -Downside here is that since the destination is not known beforehand, > > > lookups for the particular address settings in question will either be > > made > > > on each diverted message or some additional mechanism has to be put in > > > place to manage this. > > > > > > > > I'm looking for feedback on how you all feel this should be handled. > > > > > > > > Personally I feel the current behavior is a bit strange and should be > > > considered a bug, so I would prefer solution 1. To handle the case > where > > > someone might expect this type of behavior, a note about this change > > could > > > be added to the brokers versions-page about the change in semantics > along > > > with a suggestion to use something like a "black-hole" destination for > > > these messages instead. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > This email message (including its attachments) is confidential and > may > > > contain privileged information and is intended solely for the use of > the > > > individual and/or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the > > > intended recipient of this e-mail you may not disseminate, distribute > or > > > copy this e-mail (including its attachments), or any part thereof. If > > this > > > e-mail is received in error, please notify the sender immediately by > > return > > > e-mail and make sure that this e-mail (including its attachments), and > > all > > > copies thereof, are immediately deleted from your system. Please > further > > > note that when you communicate with us via email or visit our website > we > > > process your personal data. See our privacy policy for more information > > > about how we process it: https://www.volvogroup.com/en-en/privacy.html > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > >
