One could argue that the "no-local" should be treated the same way as selectors on a durable subscription - that is that the "no-local"ness is somehow encoded into the binding (if queue has exclusive consumer and consumer connection == producer consumer then don't enqueue)
Certainly seems wrong to be retaining those messages -- Rob On 13 February 2012 23:03, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13 February 2012 21:59, Rob Godfrey <[email protected]> wrote: >> <*snip*> >> >>>>> The client currently only sends the no-local argument during queue >>>>> creation as you mentioned, but there is support in the protocol for >>>>> adding arguments to subscriptions so it could potentially be added >>>>> there too (The protocol actually has a no-local field on the file and >>>>> stream consume methods, so why it doesn't on the standard subscribe >>>>> method I'm not sure). >>>> >>>> I vaguely remembered something like this hence the question. >>>> Again speaking with Gordon I found the C++ broker does not support >>>> no-local being sent as an argument during subscription. >>>> However given the requirements around no-local for JMS I believe we >>>> can just get away with Topics and not worry about Queues. >> >> The "interesting" problem is durable subscriptions I would have >> thought - which are essentially queues. A client can disconnect, and >> a new connection subscribe, both with no-local set, but obviously >> "no-local" now has a different meaning (since the connection in >> question is different). >> >> -- Rob >> > > DurSubs and no-local are interesting. E.g. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3605 :) > > Robbie > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
