-
1. Re: Semantics of no local for a durable subscription
ovidiu.feodorov Sep 11, 2006 9:50 PM (in response to timfox)A "no local" consumer (durable subscriptions included) doesn't receive message sent on its connection, as long as there is a connection. The moment a durable subscription's associated consumer is closed, the durable subscription ceases to have a logical association with any connection, so it's free to accept message from any producers on any connection.
When a new "no local" consumer for that durable subscription is created, then that subscription must not accept messages from producers sharing the connection with the new consumer. And so on. IMHO. -
2. Re: Semantics of no local for a durable subscription
timfox Sep 12, 2006 5:21 AM (in response to timfox)Well, if that is true you will have the some strange effects.
E.g.
Connection conn1 sends message m1
conn1 creates consumer with no local = true.
conn1 sends message m2
consumer closes without receiving anything
conn1 sends message m3
conn1 creates consumer with no local = false
consumer receives m1
consumer receivers m3
(no m2!!)
My opinion is that no local should only apply to the *consumer* of the subscription (the subscriber), not the subscription itself, which is the way it currently is and has been for some time, and passes TCK.
I just to wanted to clarify since the spec is a bit fuzzy about this.