On 2 November 2017 at 18:08, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/11/17 17:57, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > >> Right, and it isnt really trying to, but thats the concern as the >> broker doesnt necessarily think it wont. >> > > I think question is whether or not the terminus is shared. The terminus > expiration/durability is the only way the client and server can understand > each others intentions on this point. > > I think the shared capability on the source should be clarified as > implying that the terminus is shared. (This would imply that you could not > resume individually identified links from such a shared subscription). > > For the case where you want to have distinct termini attached to a shared > subscription, I think we should use the source address to indicate the > subscription in some way (e.g. mytopic/mysub), since it is separate from > the terminus itself. > > This is my prefered mechanism for "shared" subscriptions outside the context of "JMS Durable Subscriptions" (not to say that such a form can't be used by a JMS client, just that it from JMS you would probably consume from it as a normal destination "mytopic/mysub", rather than using the dedicated JMS durable subscription features). The weird name scoping / visibility of JMS Durable subs precludes using such a sensible scheme for those, I think :-)
-- Rob > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
