Thanks for reminding us of your JMS_SPEC-95, Chris.
I've added references for GFMQ, ActiveMQ and HornetQ to that issue. (The link for TIBCO isn't for Java so I'm not sure
how applicable it is; if anyone has a Java link please add it). That JIRA issue is already on the list at
https://java.net/projects/jms-spec/pages/JMS21Planning, so it will certainly be on our agenda for the next release of JMS.
I'll answer Clebert's wider point about when the next release might be, and how we go about producing it, in a separate
email (so people don't accidentally miss it).
Nigel
On 19/09/2013 14:14, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> Just read your JIRA. I think we should do it.
>
>
> @Nigel: how things will happen from now on... we had already delivered JMS2... how future changes will be done? new
> versions? JMS 2.1? how it works?
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Chris Barrow <chris.barrow_at_kaazing.com <mailto:chris.barrow_at_kaazing.com>> wrote:
>
> BTW, I did actually file a request for this a while back: https://java.net/jira/browse/JMS_SPEC-95
>
> Chris
>
> On 9/18/2013 7:02 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>> That's what most providers already do anyways... HornetQ, SunMQ.. etc.. as I provided with links before. We just
>> don't have a standardized property to the extra ACK mode
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com <mailto:nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Clebert,
>>
>> So are you suggesting that there would be a new ack mode "individual-ack", which modifies the behaviour of
>> Message.acknowledge() so that it acknowledges the individual message only? (This would require a
>> non-transacted session, of course.)
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>> On 17/09/2013 22:40, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>> I don't think it would.. we would add a new ACK MODE... INDIVIDUAL_ACKNOWLEDGE
>>>
>>> if the new ack mode is used, then you would have a new behaviour defined by the new mode. I don't see any
>>> problems with that.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:52 PM, John D. Ament <john.d.ament_at_gmail.com <mailto:john.d.ament_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think when we spoke about it, it would cause current API
>>> breakage/behavioral changes.
>>>
>>> Maybe if we add a new method that did the individual ACK we could avoid it?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>> <clebert.suconic_at_gmail.com <mailto:clebert.suconic_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> > Something for next version... (maintenance version or something)
>>> >
>>> > I feel like I had already talked about this long time ago... sorry if did..
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I have googled at a few Messaging implementations and I have seen lot of
>>> > them supporting individual acks as an extension:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19909-01/817-3728/program.html
>>> >
>>> > http://activemq.apache.org/maven/apidocs/org/apache/activemq/ActiveMQSession.html#INDIVIDUAL_ACKNOWLEDGE
>>> >
>>> > http://docs.jboss.org/hornetq/2.3.0.beta1/docs/user-manual/html/pre-acknowledge.html#individual-ack
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> https://docs.tibco.com/pub/enterprise_message_service/6.3.0-february-2012/doc/html/tib_ems_api_reference/api/dotNET/html/M_TIBCO_EMS_Message_Acknowledge.htm
>>> >
>>> > WebSphereMQ seems also to have something but I would need to research more.
>>> > It's enough to say that it seems it has something there.
>>> >
>>> > So, Why not make it standard?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The behaviour would be.. message.acknowledge would only ack the message
>>> > acked and not previous message as it is on the CLIENT_ACK method.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > WDYT?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
>> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
> http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
> http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com