2009/6/25 Martin Ritchie <[email protected]> > Rajith, > > I think we need to have a think about what we want from Failover. It > is so poorly tested just now having it disabled by default is probably > a very good idea. > > I am 100% in agreement that we should not have failover (retry) switched on by default. the behaviour is not what you would expect from a JMS client. If people understand the retry mechanism and its limitations it is fine for them to switch it on (if it works). We should also think about how we differentiate between retries/failover where no state is lost (which is possible in 0-10) and retries/failover where state is lost - they are most definitely not the same thing, and their presentation to the client application should be different (i.e. where no state is lost the failover can be invisible to the client application. If state is potentially lost then the mechanism by which the client is informed of this should be made obvious.
-- Rob
