You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> on 2006/11/27 17:30:02 UTC

Why are we not allowing to set the JMS message type ?

Hi Folks,

Currently there is a problem with JMSMessage.setJMSType method.
It throws the following exception.

ERROR: javax.jms.JMSException: Cannot set JMS Type - it is implicitly
defined based on message type
     [java]     at
org.apache.qpid.client.message.AbstractJMSMessage.setJMSType(
AbstractJMSMessage.java:220)

According to the spec we need to support this method.
What I am suggesting is to not to throw this Exception, but rather have a
log message.

Thoughts ??

Regards,

Rajith

Re: Why are we not allowing to set the JMS message type ?

Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.

Sure, will check in a fix.

Rajith

On 11/27/06, Robert Greig <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 27/11/06, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Currently there is a problem with JMSMessage.setJMSType method.
> > It throws the following exception.
> >
> > According to the spec we need to support this method.
> > What I am suggesting is to not to throw this Exception, but rather have
> a
> > log message.
> >
> > Thoughts ??
>
> Hmm, yes I have no idea why we've implemented the JMSType handling in
> the way that we have. It is definitely wrong.
>
> I think fortunately it should be very simple to support properly:
>
> 1) the content header in AMQP has a type field
> 2) just fix it so that the value set by the user ends up in that
> header field rather than the value the system current sets.
>
> RG
>

Re: Why are we not allowing to set the JMS message type ?

Posted by Robert Greig <ro...@gmail.com>.

On 27/11/06, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Currently there is a problem with JMSMessage.setJMSType method.
> It throws the following exception.
>
> According to the spec we need to support this method.
> What I am suggesting is to not to throw this Exception, but rather have a
> log message.
>
> Thoughts ??

Hmm, yes I have no idea why we've implemented the JMSType handling in
the way that we have. It is definitely wrong.

I think fortunately it should be very simple to support properly:

1) the content header in AMQP has a type field
2) just fix it so that the value set by the user ends up in that
header field rather than the value the system current sets.

RG