I don't see much of a reason to not use a Set, since it should be unique.
It could be a custom implementation that buffers the messages from the
server.
Just feels more modern to work with a clean collection rather than an
enumeration.
John
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com>wrote:
> Given that a QueueBrowser already provides a method to return an
> Enumeration, what would be the benefit in additionally returning a Iterator
> (unless we wanted to add support for remove())?
>
> Nigel
>
>
> On 09/01/2012 16:32, Rüdiger zu Dohna wrote:
>
> Maybe it should return an Iterator<Message>? ... deliberately not an
> Iterable! This would make it clear that it's just a snapshot and there's no
> much use to pass it as a collection around.
>
>
> On 2012-01-09, at 15:01, Nigel Deakin wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Simply returning a Set isn't very scalable: a queue might contain
> thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of messages. That's why the existing
> API returns an Enumeration.
>
> (Also, since a Queue is by definition ordered, returning a Set would be
> throwing away important semantics)
>
> Nigel
>
> On 09/01/2012 13:40, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> Hi Nigel,
>
> No, I would leave the existing method, and add a new one:
>
> public Set<Message> getMessages() throws JMSRuntimeException { }
>
> I think Set is most appropriate, since the messages should be unique.
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com>wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>>
>> On 06/01/2012 10:49, John D. Ament wrote:
>>
>>> It may be a bit late, but is it possible for us to provide a set or list
>>> back that is properly typed (e.g.
>>> javax.jms.Message) from QueueBrowser?
>>>
>>
>> Can you be more specific about what you are asking for?
>>
>> Are you asking for the existing method
>> Enumeration getEnumeration() throws JMSException;
>> to be changed to
>> Enumeration <Message> getEnumeration() throws JMSException;
>>
>> or something else?
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>
>
>