Details

    • Type: Improvement
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: 1.5 M2
    • Component/s: Core
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      One very intelligent person ones said:
      "Be concervative in what you do; Be liberal in what you accept from others."

      Two reasons to accept also JMS TextMessages next to BytesMessages.

      1. BytesMessage is only a standard for SOAP, what about POX?
      2. Not all providers send soap messages in a JMS BytesMessages, lot of the implementation use TextMessage

      1. JmsMessageReceiver.java
        2 kB
        Tom Lambrechts
      2. JmsReceiverConnection.java
        7 kB
        Tom Lambrechts

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          tola2000 Tom Lambrechts added a comment -

          Added TextMessage

          Show
          tola2000 Tom Lambrechts added a comment - Added TextMessage
          Hide
          tola2000 Tom Lambrechts added a comment -

          Implementation for TextMessage

          Show
          tola2000 Tom Lambrechts added a comment - Implementation for TextMessage
          Hide
          arjen.poutsma Arjen Poutsma added a comment -

          The key reason to use BytesMessages instead of TextMessages is that TextMessages contains Strings, and XML is not a string. XML is a series of bytes, with character encoding. Using a XML parser, you can get a string out of the bytes.

          For instance, what should happen if the following string is contained in the message:

          <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
          <someElement/>

          How should the UTF-8 encoding be interpreted? Or should it be ignored? What about attachments?

          But I'm open to take a pragmatic approach, and also support TextMessages. However, I will probably note in the reference & api docs that BytesMessages are prefered.

          Show
          arjen.poutsma Arjen Poutsma added a comment - The key reason to use BytesMessages instead of TextMessages is that TextMessages contains Strings, and XML is not a string. XML is a series of bytes, with character encoding. Using a XML parser, you can get a string out of the bytes. For instance, what should happen if the following string is contained in the message: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <someElement/> How should the UTF-8 encoding be interpreted? Or should it be ignored? What about attachments? But I'm open to take a pragmatic approach, and also support TextMessages. However, I will probably note in the reference & api docs that BytesMessages are prefered.
          Hide
          tola2000 Tom Lambrechts added a comment -

          I fully agree with you, I do not like the Textmessage either and strongly advice to use BytesMessage.

          Personnally I would support the Textmessage and ignore the XML his encoding and take the encoding of the Textmessage.
          I would not support attachments over JMS TextMessages.

          Show
          tola2000 Tom Lambrechts added a comment - I fully agree with you, I do not like the Textmessage either and strongly advice to use BytesMessage. Personnally I would support the Textmessage and ignore the XML his encoding and take the encoding of the Textmessage. I would not support attachments over JMS TextMessages.
          Hide
          arjen.poutsma Arjen Poutsma added a comment -

          Closing 1.5 M2 issues.

          Show
          arjen.poutsma Arjen Poutsma added a comment - Closing 1.5 M2 issues.

            People

            • Assignee:
              arjen.poutsma Arjen Poutsma
              Reporter:
              tola2000 Tom Lambrechts
            • Votes:
              1 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              1 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: