cshannon commented on PR #1364: URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1364#issuecomment-2536251567
> I agree with Chris. I think it makes more sense to close to the ActiveMQ async behavior (that exists for a while) more than trying to implement the spec at 100%. It would not surprise users imho ;) Well, I'm not really advocating one way or the other at the moment, and I still think there's a very good argument to be made that the work needs to be done to implement the spec correctly. I'm just saying we could have the conversation about it. Normally I would say if we are implementing the JMS spec then obviously it should be done 100%, this is just a little interesting because there's an existing async API that users have been using that is quite close but slightly different. It's hard to say how surprised users will be as it depends on if they are a new user or legacy user probably. I would think that if a user is migrating from the existing async custom API to the Jakarta API they may be fine with the change and be expecting it to be the same. But there are going to be other users who are not migrating or read the spec and expect a different behavior and that the callbacks are completed in order so I could see someone relying on that (maybe the callback increments something, who knows) that could now break if they complete out of order. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: gitbox-unsubscr...@activemq.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: gitbox-h...@activemq.apache.org For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
