I noted the same issues in my tests and already created a fix for it. In addition, the error handling of that ProertiesFileInitialContextFactory is less than adequate and I had actually plans to beef that up as well. What is the best way to contribute that back? Unfortunately you guys don't seem to use Github which would let me submit a merge request. -Uli --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: amqp-1-0-jms client and org.apache.qpid.amqp_1_0.jms.jndi.PropertiesFileInitialContextFactory From: "Rob Godfrey" <[email protected]> Date: 12/12/13 2:11 pm To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
I don't think there's any reason why there should be a difference to the provider in the 0-8/9/10 client... probably some copy & paste error :) -- Rob On 12 December 2013 19:20, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > The current AMQP 1.0 JMS client's JNDI provider implementation seems a > little odd to me (i.e. org.apache.qpid.amqp_1_0.jms.jndi. > PropertiesFileInitialContextFactory ). > > It forces you to specify a provider url[1], but treats that as a file, > making it hard (impossible) to get at a properties file packaged as a > resource. > > Is this intentional? Am I missing or misunderstanding something? > > --Gordon. > > [1] The equivalent implementation from the old JMS client (i.e. 0-10 etc), > from which this seems to have been copied, doesn't require a provider url, > so though it has the same treatment of the 'url' as a file path, it doesn't > require you to use that (you can load via getResourceAsStream() or > equivalent). > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
