Setting the message body for an o.a.q.proton.message.Message is slightly awkward. You have to create a AmqpValue. AmqpSequence or a Data object that encapsulates the underlying data type.
Given that one of our goals is to expose an API that works with standard Java types instead of AMQP defined types, I suggest we simply use Object for setBody and getBody methods. The implementation can then handle the conversion back and forth underneath. What do you think? On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Rafael Schloming <r...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > Overall I think this is a good direction. I made a bunch of more detailed > comments on the patch. > > --Rafael > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Rafi, further to our discussion I have posted a patch to illustrate the >> approach we plan to take. >> This should enable me to make progress until you get a chance to make >> further changes on the Decoder side. >> >> Regards, >> >> Rajith >> >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < >> rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> More questions. >>> >>> For all the maps we return should we restrict them to <String, Object> >>> or should it be <Object, Object> ? >>> Technically one could use a Number (int, long) etc as a key.. >>> >>> Any opinion here? ;) >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Rafael Schloming <r...@alum.mit.edu> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < >>>> rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Rafi could u pls answer the two questions I had in the code? >>>>> >>>>> 1. Your uint method only takes an int .. shouldn't it take a long? >>>>> Bcos it could contain a value larger than a java int? >>>>> >>>> >>>> To be honest I don't quite remember for sure, but I think it will do >>>> the two's complement and put it on the wire as a proper unsigned value. In >>>> other words I think it's just using the int type as a convenient/efficient >>>> way to pass around 4 bytes. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. What should I use for boolean? there is no getBoolean .. or an >>>>> equivalent method >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think you might need to add this. I probably just omitted it. >>>> >>>> --Rafael >>>> >>> >>> >> >
