On 29 February 2012 14:24, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 02/29/2012 12:46 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> >> If a user specifies a type in their >> address string, then I think thats the type of object they should get > > > I agree. > >> I think the scope for anyone getting a Destination object that didnt >> actually form a concrete Queue or Topic implementation should be >> >> absolutely minimal. I'd really rather prefer it didnt happen as I dont >> think it should ever be necessary > > > The only case I can see is if you want to provide backward compatibility for > existing config files in which the node type is not specified in anyway > (either through the address or through the queue/topic prefix to the jndi > name). >
Personally, I tend to think it's better for us to break compatibility now to save the hassles that such non-specific destinations cause the user when they actually try to use them. -- Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
