W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > December 2010

Re: ACTION-234 complete

From: Mark Phillips <M8PHILLI@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:51:35 +0000
To: public-soap-jms@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6FAD9C5C.B0880576-ON80257800.00450289-80257800.0046A43A@uk.ibm.com>

You're welcome - thanks for raising the issue.

I was keen to keep both techniques for setting the properties because I
felt that was more in the spirit of the original sample, but I agree that
there are potential pitfalls in using the methods on the producer...
particularly if the producer is shared by many requesters.

To mitigate this I noted in the comments that the four parameter send
method can be used as an alternative which will not change the producer's
default.  I believe this should be sufficient to alert people to a
potential problem, but I'd be happy to change the example (relegating the
producer.set* methods to comments) if there's a consensus that the current
example will lead to bad practices.


From:       Andrew Kennedy <andrewinternational@gmail.com>
To:         public-soap-jms@w3.org
Cc:         Mark Phillips/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Date:       18/12/2010 15:46
Subject:    Re: ACTION-234 complete
Sent by:    public-soap-jms-request@w3.org

On 14 Dec 2010, at 13:42, Mark Phillips wrote:
> To complete ACTION-234 [1] I applied the proposed resolution for
> ISSUE-68
> [2] which was outlined in my email of 7th December.
> The changes involved altering the code sample in Section to
> replace
> the jmsMessage.setJMSDeliveryMode() call with
> producer.setDeliveryMode(),
> and jmsMessage.setJMSPriority() with producer.setPriority().
> The new version of the specification can be viewed here:
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms-2010-10-
> CR.html?rev=1.10&content-type=text/html;%
> 20charset=utf-8&f=h#binding-header-props-xmp


That looks good now, thanks for making this change.

Using the producer does make it more readable, though in practice I
still think people would use the four-argument send method, as
otherwise you change behavior for all subsequent messages sent
without QoS parameters using the MessageProducer passed to this
method. These side-effects were why I didn't suggest this originally.
I know this is just example code, so perhaps this is not a problem?

-- andrew d kennedy ? apache qpid project : http://qpid.apache.org/ ;
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2010 12:56:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:24:48 UTC