Agreed. One analogy I thought of involved directions. Two alternative sets of directions from one place to another are different even though you end up in the same place by following them.
Robbie On 26 Mar 2013 13:08, "Gordon Sim" <g...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 03/25/2013 06:22 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote: > >> I think as an interim solution I will add a check for subjects. >> >> Longer term I think (especially when we work on the new JMS client) we >> should probably look at implementing this for Queues and Topics as >> follows. >> 1. Queues, if getQueueName() is the same then the destinations are equal. >> 2. Topics, if getTopicName() is the same then the destinations are >> equal. >> > > As mentioned in an earlier response, if a Destination can contain a > default subject then the presence of difference subjects in two Destination > instances means they are not equivalent when creating consumers or > producers, and in quite a significant way. > > I don't understand the rationale for your long term approach above. It > seems to essentially revert to the 'type and name only' option you > initially preferred. Why do you think that is a better long term option? > > If people want to merely compare the queue or topic name they can do that > explicitly. I think the equals() method should be a stronger test for > equivalence. > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.**org<dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org > >
