gemmellr commented on PR #73: URL: https://github.com/apache/qpid-jms/pull/73#issuecomment-5570276854
No need to re-quote the spec+mapping, I'm aware of exactly what they say. I wrote the mapping, and discussed it and the spec text in this exact context with both of the key people that wrote that, who told me and others its text is imprecise/incorrect for the body definition when I and others have raised this to them previously (starting well over a decade ago). Both have written clients that omit bodies and so have various others, so its also a common deployed client and server behaviour at this point. I cant actually think of an implementation I am aware of that hasnt either now being doing this or handling this for approaching 15 years, except RabbitMQ. So I would again suggest you change the server to handle it, regardless of what happens with the Qpid JMS client. I'm not in a rush to change the client here at all given everything I've said, and I think what it does now is actually the most suited approach for the situation in general, so I do think maintaining the current behaviour by default still makes sense. If you want to add a toggled ability rather than making RabbitMQ tolerate the various existing clients feel free to update your PR accordingly, also moving the behaviour to the message itself rather than the encoding. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
