> On 2011-06-22 16:32:18, 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> > > > > Yes only the default binding should be removed and I will be modifying > > the code to locate and remove it instead of having a list - I guess I > > mentioned that in my first reply. Sorry if I wasn't clear there. > > > > As to your comment about state related to address and link being mixed > > up is certainly correct. I actually plan to fix that as part of the work > > for QPID-3317. > > > > As for named links, it will not get removed. The namedQueue boolean > > takes care of that. If two consumers use a destination with a named link > > will get an error as it will be trying to create a subscription on a > > private queue. > > > > Note subscription queues created based on link props are marked > > exclusive even if it's overridden using x-declare.
The default binding if present will be the only binding, right? Why will only the default binding have the queue set? If an null queue on the binding will be correctly interpreted as implying the current subscription queue, why is the queue set explicitly for the default binding? - Gordon ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/937/#review882 ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 > >
