On 25/09/06, Alan Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1. Also the format uses nested single-quoted strings. Even if you can parse it (I have no idea how) it seems very error prone. If we need nesting then some bracket character is in order, but I think the need for nesting is evidence of trying to stuff too much into a
Alan, I was only agreeing with Gordon about having two fields to contain the reply-to information where currently some form of encoding is required. The BindingUrlFormat could be used for this but I think it makes more sense to simply have the 'reply-to exchange name' and 'reply-to routing-key' as separate fields. This gives just enough information to do a basic.publish. The exchange-type which is included in the BindingUrlFormat format is not required. Note that using the 'getJMSReplyTo' Destination for consuming should cause an InvalidDestinationException as there is not sufficient information to consume from this Destination (you could make some assumptions about the routing-key being a queue name but this could be wrong - certainly for the topic exchange). I checked the JMS spec and api documentation. This would seem to be a valid implemementation. It would certainly be an oddball application design that takes the reply-to destination and *consumes* from it :). Steve.
