Qpid-dispatch fallback destination design questions

[Chuck Rolke <cr...@redhat.com>]

There is a design issue with the fallback destination handling when the
presence of a fallback receiver is known *before* the associated primary
receiver. Please see issue
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-1786 and the attachment
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/13028935/DISPATCH-1786-fallback-test-fail-analysis.txt

From a design perspective why is the fallback deliberately ignored before
the primary is known? Certainly forcing the primary to be known first is
easier for life-cycle accounting but that leads to unwanted behavior later.
@tross do you recall if this is actually correct and part of the design? If
not then do you have any suggestions on the best strategy for fixing it?