From: Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:40:36 -0400

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>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> 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