----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/642/#review519 -----------------------------------------------------------
That's a suggested fix for QPID-3214 right (not QPID-3216)? I'm not that familiar with the code, but based on point 1 in your comment on QPID-3214 I have a few questions: Not signalling session exceptions to the listener would be a semantic change, right? Might some applications be relying on that at present? Might there be cases where that was actually the only way to get informed of a session issue? E.g. if a session just has a message listener set and if the/a queue subscribed to is then deleted, a not-found exception will be sent by the broker. Will the application detect that? - Gordon On 2011-04-20 22:14:56, rajith attapattu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/642/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2011-04-20 22:14:56) > > > Review request for qpid. > > > Summary > ------- > > Suggested fix for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3216 > Please note we may also need to fix the exceptionReceived method in > AMQConnection.java for reasons outlined in the above JIRA. > > > Diffs > ----- > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/trunk/qpid/java/client/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/client/AMQSession_0_10.java > 1095508 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/642/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > rajith > >
