-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/1690/#review1722
-----------------------------------------------------------



/branches/qpid-3346/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Consumer.h
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/1690/#comment3932>

    Perhaps we could simply revert to using the address of the consumer pointer?


- Gordon


On 2011-08-31 20:37:49, Kenneth Giusti wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/1690/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2011-08-31 20:37:49)
> 
> 
> Review request for qpid.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> Update to message group development:
> 
> Created a functional test tool that verifies message group behavior across 
> multiple clients consuming from a single queue.
> 
> Also, bugfix: the "tag" used to identify a Consumer is not unique beyond the 
> consumer's session.  Queue's need to track consumers across different 
> sessions, and using the tag was not unique enough.  I've introduced a 
> consumer name that is generated on the broker and should be unique 
> broker-wide.
> 
> 
> This addresses bug qpid-3346.
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/qpid-3346
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /branches/qpid-3346/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Consumer.h 1158073 
>   /branches/qpid-3346/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/SemanticState.h 1158073 
>   /branches/qpid-3346/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/SemanticState.cpp 1158073 
>   /branches/qpid-3346/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/cluster/UpdateClient.cpp 1158073 
>   /branches/qpid-3346/qpid/cpp/src/tests/Makefile.am 1158073 
>   /branches/qpid-3346/qpid/cpp/src/tests/msg_group_test.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   /branches/qpid-3346/qpid/cpp/src/tests/run_msg_group_tests PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/1690/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> One simple functional test as an example - will flesh out the test script 
> with multiple runs of the tool with different consumer and producer settings.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kenneth
> 
>

Reply via email to