Rajith +1 -K ----- Original Message ----- > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11/17/2011 04:57 PM, Ken Giusti wrote: > >> > >> Hi Justin, > >> > >> Would it be possible to include the fix for QPID-3626 in the > >> upcoming rc? > >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3626 > >> > >> Without it, any python client that would like to access the > >> timestamp > >> would have to revert to using the old client API, something we > >> don't want to > >> encourage going forward. > > > > I'm in favour of this as (a) it helps keep the messaging API > > clients > > consistent rather than letting them diverge and (b) it is very low > > risk. > > I'm fine with this change as well. > However I'm not too keen to introduce the change in the JMS client to > use a custom property to carry the JMS timestamp for this particular > release. There is some evidence that the increase in message > properties have an adverse impact on performance. > > However we should include the change in the JMS client for the next > release and hopefully we would have a chance to address the perf > issue > related to message properties. > > Regards, > > Rajith > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
