[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2062?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Rajith Attapattu resolved QPID-2062.
Resolution: Fixed
Applied patch from Tim at rev 813850 (trunk) and I also added test cases a
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2098?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Rajith Attapattu resolved QPID-2098.
Resolution: Fixed
This is fixed in rev 813850 (trunk) and test cases are checked in rev 8140
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2063?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Rajith Attapattu resolved QPID-2063.
Resolution: Fixed
Applied patch from Tim at rev 813850 (trunk) and I also added test cases a
I like the discussion on message content.
Given Alan's recent suggestions, I can easily envisage how an
implementation could optimize the Receiver case and lazily extract the
content from the underlying protocol frames into the form required by
the application, and avoid an intermediate memory cop
Rafael Schloming wrote:
Rafael Schloming wrote:
The upshot is you can sort of look at these as providing a JMS-like
API plus some critically missing bits minus some extra cruft.
One thing I should say before someone accuses me of bashing our JMS
client too much is that most of the criticall
Rafael Schloming wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:
In another message, I suggest separating out the configuration API
from the messaging API.
In this message, I wonder whether we should consider using either AMQP
1.0 or Java JMS as the model for the new messaging API, rather than
create a third m
Jonathan Robie wrote:
In another message, I suggest separating out the configuration API from
the messaging API.
In this message, I wonder whether we should consider using either AMQP
1.0 or Java JMS as the model for the new messaging API, rather than
create a third model that nevertheless ne
In another message, I suggest separating out the configuration API from
the messaging API.
In this message, I wonder whether we should consider using either AMQP
1.0 or Java JMS as the model for the new messaging API, rather than
create a third model that nevertheless needs to bridge both Java
Joshua Kramer wrote:
and the existing APIs, which are centered around the AMQP 0-10 model,
with exchanges, bindings, queues, etc. To use the new API, a
programmer need not think of exchanges at all, but anyone who uses
the management tools sees
Nice timing. :) I have a Linux Journal artic
and the existing APIs, which are centered around the AMQP 0-10 model, with
exchanges, bindings, queues, etc. To use the new API, a programmer need not
think of exchanges at all, but anyone who uses the management tools sees
Nice timing. :) I have a Linux Journal article going to press today
The new messaging client API is designed to hide the details of specific
AMQP versions. This causes a certain impedance mismatch with the
maangement tools and the existing APIs, which are centered around the
AMQP 0-10 model, with exchanges, bindings, queues, etc. To use the new
API, a programm
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1877?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Ritchie updated QPID-1877:
-
Attachment:
TEST-org.apache.qpid.server.store.PersistentStoreTest.testForcibleStartStopMidTransact
ACL checking for the exchangeBound method is incorrect
--
Key: QPID-2098
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2098
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Bug
Components: C++ Broker
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2093?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Ritchie reassigned QPID-2093:
Assignee: Robbie Gemmell (was: Martin Ritchie)
Hi Robbie can you review this change please.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2092?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Ritchie updated QPID-2092:
-
Status: Ready To Review (was: In Progress)
> Move system test configuration to the systest packag
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2093?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Ritchie updated QPID-2093:
-
Status: Ready To Review (was: In Progress)
> QueueDelete doesn't check durability of queue before
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2097?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Ritchie reassigned QPID-2097:
Assignee: Robbie Gemmell
Hi Robbie, could you take a look at this when you have a spare momm
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2094?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Ritchie updated QPID-2094:
-
Fix Version/s: 0.6
> Allow System tests to run without -Dtest.output to ease in IDE debugging
> --
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2094?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Ritchie updated QPID-2094:
-
Status: Ready To Review (was: In Progress)
> Allow System tests to run without -Dtest.output to e
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2095?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Ritchie updated QPID-2095:
-
Status: Ready To Review (was: In Progress)
> Set JMX Port in InVM configuration to allow InVM JMX
InVM JMX Console appears to have problems starting up/shutting down.
Key: QPID-2097
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2097
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Bug
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2094?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Ritchie reassigned QPID-2094:
Assignee: Martin Ritchie
> Allow System tests to run without -Dtest.output to ease in IDE de
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2095?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Ritchie reassigned QPID-2095:
Assignee: Martin Ritchie
> Set JMX Port in InVM configuration to allow InVM JMX Testing
> --
ExchangeRegistration shoud NOT automatically add durable Exchanges to
messageStore
--
Key: QPID-2096
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2096
Project: Qpid
Set JMX Port in InVM configuration to allow InVM JMX Testing
Key: QPID-2095
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2095
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: Improvement
Com
Allow System tests to run without -Dtest.output to ease in IDE debugging
Key: QPID-2094
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2094
Project: Qpid
Issue Type: B
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2093?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Ritchie updated QPID-2093:
-
Affects Version/s: 0.5
Fix Version/s: 0.6
> QueueDelete doesn't check durability of queue
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2093?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Ritchie reassigned QPID-2093:
Assignee: Martin Ritchie
> QueueDelete doesn't check durability of queue before performing s
QueueDelete doesn't check durability of queue before performing store delete
Key: QPID-2093
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2093
Project: Qpid
Issue
On 09/10/2009 08:24 PM, Jonathan Robie wrote:
I don't understand why we have two different styles for declaring queue
parameters.
Some have explicit parameters that are used in session.queueDeclare:
session.queueDeclare(arg::queue=myQueue,
arg::exclusive=true,
arg::autoDelete=true);
We have de
30 matches
Mail list logo
