On 02/29/2012 01:29 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
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.
Yes, I think that is also a reasonable approach, especially if we give a
clear error message that allows the user to quickly correct the problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
