Thanks! Change committed.
On 08/05/2010 10:06 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
