Here's another longstanding issue that I'd like to finish.
You may remember that last May I made some proposals to clarify the meaning of the noLocal flag with durable subscriptions.
The issue is summarised here:
http://java.net/jira/browse/JMS_SPEC-65#action_339660
and the changes that I made to the draft spec and javadocs are summarised here:
http://java.net/jira/browse/JMS_SPEC-65#action_340590
Here's a summary of the new spec:
"When a durable subscription is created on a topic, the noLocal argument may be used to specify that messages published
to the topic by its own connection or any other with the same client identifier will not be added to the durable
subscription. If the client identifier is unset then setting noLocal to true has no effect."
The only person who expressed any concern about this was Clebert who was concerned about backwards compatibility, and I
parked this issue as a result. I've recently been in touch with Clebert and I think this is no longer a concern, so the
changes can go ahead.
However Clebert did mention one possible change. In JMS 2.0 we allow clientID to be unset when creating a durable
subscription. Since the definition of noLocal is based on the clientID of the producer matching the clientID of the
subscription, I originally proposed that
"If the client identifier is unset then setting noLocal to true has no effect."
However I am wondering whether this case should actually throw an exception, since it is probably better to throw an
exception rather than silently ignore a parameter. I would therefore like to like to propose a small modification to all
API methods which create a durable subscription as follows:
"If the client identifier is unset then setting noLocal to true will cause a java.lang.IllegalArgumentException to be
thrown."
Comments, please!
Nigel