> On 2011-06-22 15:09:52, rajith attapattu wrote:
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/trunk/qpid/java/client/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/client/BasicMessageConsumer_0_10.java,
> >  line 134
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/937/diff/1/?file=21364#file21364line134>
> >
> >     Agreed. I initially anticipated that there will be more than one 
> > binding for the old queue, but realized it's not possible for this specific 
> > case.
> >     
> >     I should have changed the code to just locate the single binding and 
> > removed it instead of the list.
> >     
> >     I will fix this.

Can you also clarify what is being done here and why?


> On 2011-06-22 15:09:52, rajith attapattu wrote:
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/trunk/qpid/java/client/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/client/AMQSession_0_10.java,
> >  line 1329
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/937/diff/1/?file=21363#file21363line1329>
> >
> >     The method createSubscriptionQueue is invoked only when the node type 
> > is "exchange".
> >     
> >     In that case does it make sense to have x-bindings in the node props ?

It is certainly not disallowed.


> On 2011-06-22 15:09:52, rajith attapattu wrote:
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/trunk/qpid/java/client/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/client/messaging/address/AddressHelper.java,
> >  line 255
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/937/diff/1/?file=21365#file21365line255>
> >
> >     Here the assumption is that x-bindings is only specified in either node 
> > or link props but not both.
> >     
> >     For Topics IMO it doesn't really make sense to have x-bindings in node 
> > props.
> >     
> >     Even in the Queue case, I am not sure if thee is a valid case where it 
> > makes sense to define x-bindings in both places. It should be either in 
> > node props or link props.
> >     
> >     What do you think ?

Bindings associated with the node are created/deleted if and when the node is 
created/deleted; bindings associated with the link are created/deleted when the 
link is opened/closed.


- Gordon


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/937/#review877
-----------------------------------------------------------


On 2011-06-20 17:29:56, rajith attapattu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/937/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2011-06-20 17:29:56)
> 
> 
> Review request for qpid.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> The patch makes the following changes
> 
> 1. AMQSession_0_10.java
>    A default binding is only added if there are no explicit bindings 
> specified via x-bindings
> 
> 2. BasicMessageConsumer_0_10.java
>    When the same destination (Topic) is used to create two different 
> consumers the code creates a copy of the destination to ensure the second 
> consumer gets it's own unique temp queue. When doing so we need to ensure we 
> delete any bindings for the previous temp queue. If we don't remove old 
> bindings and if there were no explicit bindings specified via x-bindings, 
> then the second consumers queue will not be bound due to the logic mentioned 
> in [1]. (Bcos the previous binding is treated as explicit bindings).
> 
> 3. AddressHelper.java
>    The second part of the JIRA covers a different bug - i.e x-binding 
> specified in the link properties are not used if the node type if a queue.
>     I added code to read the x-bindings in link props if there are no 
> x-bindings specified in the node props.
> 
> 4. Modified test cases
>     1. To ensure that a default binding is not added when explicit bindings 
> are specified.
>     2. To fix an existing test case that relied on a default binding even 
> when x-bindings is specified.
> (*) I still need to add (or modify an existing test case) to cover the case 
> where x-bindings are specified in link props when the node type if a queue.
> 
> 
> This addresses bug QPID-3265.
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3265
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/trunk/qpid/java/client/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/client/AMQSession_0_10.java
>  1137691 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/trunk/qpid/java/client/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/client/BasicMessageConsumer_0_10.java
>  1137691 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/trunk/qpid/java/client/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/client/messaging/address/AddressHelper.java
>  1137691 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/trunk/qpid/java/systests/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/test/client/destination/AddressBasedDestinationTest.java
>  1137691 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/937/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> The use cases specified in the JIRA were manually tested in addition to the 
> above mentioned automated test cases.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> rajith
> 
>

Reply via email to