On 07/03/07, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Godfrey wrote: > Having said that, because of requirements put forward by people actually > using the software, we have built a higher level of interoperability at the > JMS level into the .net and C++ clients, and C++ broker (i.e. extending the > FieldTable to cope with the new types). The c++ trunk only (as far as I know) includes an update to cope with the 'binary' field table value type. It doesn't (as far as I know) cope with any of the other extended types.
Which is fine... I think that for basic interoperability we no longer even need this (I changed the Java so it sends a single integer number rather than a binary). Since the Fieldtable implementation is likely to change radically in 0-10 I don't think we should put in any further work to us the original "extended" FieldTable. Having said that it may be that for specific business purposes some of us will have a need to do that before our next release. In which case we can make a patch against M2. -- Rob
