[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-5555?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13910350#comment-13910350
]
Rob Godfrey commented on QPID-5555:
-----------------------------------
First two I'll obviously fix...
The no-local filter is *only* used on bindings from exchange to queue... so
it's a little weird... (how is something "local" or not to a queue... I suppose
that one could looks at the exclusive ownership of the queue and say "not if
message generated by the same connection that owns the queue", but that's not
right either. Where a queue is temporary one could base the filter on the
connection used to create the binding... the issue is with durable bindings
where at the time the binding is created we know not which connection is going
to be in use. Basically the whole no-local on a binding is a terrible idea,
but I think for practical purposes what is currently implemented is no worse
than what was previously (in the prior case the consumers would all have had to
be from the same session).
re: getOwner() - yes, though I'd really like to kill getOwner() and change the
log format :-)
> [Java Broker] Modify Queue implementation of lifetime / exclusivity policies
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: QPID-5555
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-5555
> Project: Qpid
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Java Broker
> Reporter: Rob Godfrey
> Assignee: Robbie Gemmell
> Fix For: 0.27
>
>
> AMQP 0-8/9/9-1 and AMQP 0-10 both have notions of "autodelete" and
> "exclusive" for Queues. However while they use the same names, they are in
> fact subtly different. The Java Broker Queue implementation should better
> abstract these notions into the lifetime and exclusivity policies.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
