On 19 February 2015 at 04:22, Rafael Schloming <r...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < > rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Setting the message body for an o.a.q.proton.message.Message is slightly >> awkward. >> You have to create a AmqpValue. AmqpSequence or a Data object that >> encapsulates the underlying data type. >> >> Given that one of our goals is to expose an API that works with standard >> Java types instead of AMQP defined types, I suggest we simply use Object >> for setBody and getBody methods. >> The implementation can then handle the conversion back and forth >> underneath. >> >> What do you think? >> > > Makes sense to me. > > --Rafael
Adding additional functionality to set/get a 'body object' like this certainly might be useful in cases, but I dont think it should be the only way. I also wouldnt change the existing methods to do this unless the idea is to let you continue setting/getting the existing Section objects unchanged (it would obviously likely break all existing user code sending payloads otherwise). I can see that being easy enough for the setter as it works now, though I dont see how it could work for the getter without adding a control toggle. Doing this would simply some use cases, but also further restrict the ability to send the bodies you want or know what you really received, e.g is a List an AmqpvValue+List or an AmqpSequence? Is <some-object> an AmqpValue+Binary, or is it a Data? There is then things like how to support e.g multiple Data and AmqpSequence sections (something it should already support but doesnt). Robbie
