Github user mbroadst commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid/pull/9#discussion_r68313162
--- Diff: qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/amqp/Outgoing.cpp ---
@@ -142,11 +145,10 @@ void OutgoingFromQueue::handle(pn_delivery_t*
delivery)
if (preAcquires()) {
//TODO: handle message-annotations
if
(pn_disposition_is_undeliverable(pn_delivery_remote(delivery))) {
- //treat undeliverable here as rejection
- queue->reject(r.cursor);
- } else {
- queue->release(r.cursor,
pn_disposition_is_failed(pn_delivery_remote(delivery)));
+ undeliverableMessages.add(r.msg.getSequence());
}
+
+ queue->release(r.cursor,
pn_disposition_is_failed(pn_delivery_remote(delivery)));
--- End diff --
To be fair I think this reverts to the behavior before your patch, correct?
As in this isn't breaking any already held expectations. Having said that, of
course this might have been undesired behavior from the get go.
I'm hesitant to add per-queue configuration as I'm not quite sure how I
would specify the with amqp 1.0 (iirc most of the create metadata is 0-10?),
but am totally willing to explore those options. The broker-level option seems
more digestible to me atm.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
