[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3493?focusedWorklogId=654469&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-654469
]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on ARTEMIS-3493:
-------------------------------------------
Author: ASF GitHub Bot
Created on: 23/Sep/21 11:41
Start Date: 23/Sep/21 11:41
Worklog Time Spent: 10m
Work Description: gemmellr commented on pull request #3766:
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3766#issuecomment-925733028
I would suggest some other way to handle that than just perpetuating the
existing confusing naming throughout more of the codebase and UI areas that
aren't currently affected by it and don't seem like they need to be. Starting
to make thing more obvious rather than making it a more widespread issue.
Having a flag called "createUserId" here just seems confusing in general for
this, given its specifically about adding what I believe most people would
think of when you say Message ID in reference to a sent or received message.
More so considering it also isnt 'created by the user' at all in this case (nor
for many client cases either, particularly not the JMS case specifically being
referenced in the new doc).
The other thing being called MessageID elsewhere in the codebase is I
believe essentially internal detail _always_ set by the broker and so not
something anyone ever gets to set for themselves during send, so there seems
little need to avoid referencing a more intuitive 'addMessageId' here, in
something specifically about creating and sending messages including what I
expect most users think of as Message IDs. Having the description note the
MessageID being created is referenced as the UserID in other UI / Core messages
if needed seems more intuitive than the reverse approach currently being taken.
You said it is referenced as UserID in the browse table. Could said table
even adjust the reference to something more obvious and have the description
note the other aspect (as with the description here)? That would seem nice too,
if separate.
A further larger separate improvement would of course be to actually change
that UserID and MessageID naming elsewhere to something more obvious / less
confusing, even if it meant duplicating things for a time for compatibility, in
e.g management responses etc, until a breaking change could actually remove it.
But a good start would just be using the more obvious terminology in cases
where it seems simple enough to do, like here.
--
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: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Issue Time Tracking
-------------------
Worklog Id: (was: 654469)
Time Spent: 1h (was: 50m)
> expose the User ID in the send message tab in console
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ARTEMIS-3493
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-3493
> Project: ActiveMQ Artemis
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Andy Taylor
> Assignee: Andy Taylor
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 1h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> this field in the core message is used to keep the JMS Message ID, it would
> be nice to have one auto generated if a checkbox is checked
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
