As more of an aside, it isnt really necessary to make any of those
changes and risk getting it wrong like this...just copy the previous
entry on the past releases page and find+replace the version numbers
in that with your text editor of choice, done.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 16:33, Timothy Bish wro
It would appear that this problem has occurred again. The past releases
page was partially updated but in all cases the updates were incorrect and
now the download links are broken. The links to the all broker release
archives themselves point to Apache Archives but the action=download bit at
the
I dont think it would be all that strange to set it when its
appropriate/valid to do so but omit it when it isnt. You could omit it
in other cases, as could the JMS client itself and maybe it will in
future. I'm only really interested here with it not being set to an
innapropriate/invalid value on
I see what you mean but wouldn't it be a bit strange if we skipped this
stamp for this particular type of message and left it for other types. If
we change the annotation to nms specific we could keep messages consistent,
and as you pointed out, jms would be still able to infer types from the
conte
They arent really interoperable overall and thats fine, its just the
specific manner in this case which would be the issue...since the NMS
client seems like it would stamp its object message with an annotation
saying the contents are a JMS ObjectMessage when it clearly isn't.
I'm not saying the NM
Hi Robbie,
I assumed, maybe too preemptively, that object messages shouldn't be
interoperable between jms and nms as JVM and CLR are not binary compatible.
Regarding to "x-opt-jms-msg-type" annotations, are you inclining that it
might be a better idea to introduce our own annotations for nms, e.i
I think youre right there. We have ability to check a .net producer and java
consumer. Will check it out quick.
Thanks for looking over
Get Outlook for Android
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 11:00 AM +0100, "Robbie Gemmell"
wrote:
I was having a look at the readme, which then le
I was having a look at the readme, which then lead to me having a poke
around the repo for the ObjectMessage handling based on something I
read. I think there may be an issue in the object message handling and
would propose a change if its actually doing what some of the code
suggests. I could be e
