Thats one of the changes id do when making any updates to the clients use of the 'expiry' variable based on Rafi's comments, so no objections from me to the commit.
Robbie On 5 August 2010 09:41, Robert Godfrey <[email protected]> wrote: > [snip] > >> >> Any objections if I commit the patch below? >> >> As far as I can see it will not result in any difference on the client side >> (it doesn't alter the value of the expiry variable) and given the recent >> change to the broker won't affect the broker on trunk either (which will >> assume a timeout of 0 regardless of the requested value). >> >> Index: java/common/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/transport/Session.java >> =================================================================== >> --- java/common/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/transport/Session.java >> (revision 982137) >> +++ java/common/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/transport/Session.java >> (working copy) >> @@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ >> { >> initReceiver(); >> sessionAttach(name.getBytes()); >> - sessionRequestTimeout(expiry); >> + sessionRequestTimeout(0);//use expiry here only if/when session >> resume is supported >> } >> >> void resume() >> > > I think this patch makes perfect sense, so no objections from my side > > -- Rob > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
