osdir.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[GitHub] activemq-artemis pull request #2464: ARTEMIS-1859 Incorrect routing with AMQ...


Github user gemmellr commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/2464#discussion_r242205353
  
    --- Diff: artemis-protocols/artemis-amqp-protocol/src/main/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/protocol/amqp/proton/ProtonServerReceiverContext.java ---
    @@ -216,9 +219,23 @@ public RemotingConnection getRemotingConnection() {
           flow();
        }
     
    -   public RoutingType getRoutingType(Receiver receiver, SimpleString address) {
    +   public RoutingType getRoutingType(Receiver receiver, SimpleString address, AMQPMessage message) {
           org.apache.qpid.proton.amqp.messaging.Target target = (org.apache.qpid.proton.amqp.messaging.Target) receiver.getRemoteTarget();
    -      return target != null ? getRoutingType(target.getCapabilities(), address) : getRoutingType((Symbol[]) null, address);
    +      // the target may be null or have no capabilities in the case of an anonymous producer
    +      if (target != null && target.getCapabilities() != null) {
    --- End diff --
    
    Doing this for each message seems a[n existing?] waste. Also, the comment and check aren't really achieving what seems to be desired, which is to know if its not an anonymous producer.
    
    This part of the process could be done once when the link first attaches, with the routing type value deduced and used here later rather than repeating the process over and over. The initial attachment is also a better point in time to establish whether it is an anonymous producer or not. The Anonymous Relay is represented by the target with null address, but nothing prevents there being capabilities associated with it, so this check could erroneously catch an anonymous producer link. It should inspect the link target address to make the distinction.


---