Chris,
Thanks for your comments.
Yes, I agree. If client id is set then the proposed definition works when there are multiple consumers as well as when
there are single consumers. If client id is not set (which is more likely) then noLocal is ignored.
I can't think of a consistent definition of what noLocal would mean if client id was not set , which is why I have
suggested we simply ignore noLocal in that case.
In case anyone is wondering, I'm also thinking of whether we need to clarify the use of noLocal when using shared
non-durable subscriptions. The javadoc currently states "If |noLocal| is set to true then messages published to the
topic by its own connection will not be added to the shared non-durable subscription." My feeling is that this probably
isn't quite right. I may make further proposals soon - suggestions welcome.
Nigel
On 30/05/2012 17:45, Chris Barrow wrote:
> Hi Nigel,
>
> I am not on the expert group but FWIW I think the changes are fine, very clear. I did wonder about the case of
> multiple MessageConsumers on the same durable subscriber (now allowed in JMS 2.0), but I don't think it changes
> anything, especially since in that case probably people would not be setting the client ID anyway (they couldn't if
> the consumers are on different connections).
>
> regards,
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Barrow
> Senior Software Developer,
> Kaazing Corporation <http://kaazing.com/>
>
> On 5/30/2012 7:28 AM, Nigel Deakin wrote:
>> On 23/05/2012 12:50, Nigel Deakin wrote:
>>> I made these proposals a week ago on Tues 15th May. I haven't received any comments so far. Can EG members please
>>> take a
>>> look and let me know what they think?
>>>
>>> It's simplest to read this in my comment on the JIRA issue at
>>> http://java.net/jira/browse/JMS_SPEC-65#action_339660
>>> You can see a summary of the proposals at the end of that comment (or at the end of this email)
>>
>> I've received no further comments from this group (though I have reviewed it in within within the WebLogic and
>> GlassFish teams at Oracle)
>>
>> I'd welcome further comments, especially from vendors. However in the absence of objections I have now drafted the
>> javadoc and spec changes. You can read a summary of these changes in JIRA at
>> http://java.net/jira/browse/JMS_SPEC-65#action_340590
>>
>> Please do read these and let me know if you have any questions or comments.
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>>
>