[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-811?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14298501#comment-14298501
]
Rafael H. Schloming commented on PROTON-811:
--------------------------------------------
Looks good!
One further tweak possibly worth considering... in the C version of this, the
tick method doesn't compute the current time itself, but rather is passed the
current time by the caller. The idea there being that a) the embedding code
might have multiple clock APIs to choose from, and b) if the embedding code is
servicing multiple transports, it can access the time once, and pass it into
all of them rather than accessing the clock each time.
I think (a) is not much of a factor given this is Java, but I wonder if it may
still make sense for (b). What do you think?
Also, this is a bit arbitrary, but the Java tick is returning a timeout,
whereas the same version in C returns an absolute value (a deadline). Given the
methods are named exactly the same thing, it might be worth being consistent
with the design here assumig it's just an arbitrary choice. Do you think
there's an advantage to returning a timeout over an absolute value? (If there
is, I'd say keep it as is.)
> [PATCH] proton-j: no way to implement idle timeout of a connection
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PROTON-811
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-811
> Project: Qpid Proton
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: proton-j
> Affects Versions: 0.8
> Reporter: Adrian Preston
> Attachments: 0001-idle_timeout.patch,
> 0001-proton-j-updates-for-idle-timeout.patch
>
>
> Proton-J does not provide access to idle timeout values and there appears to
> be no way to send a empty frame (as per section 2.4.5 of the AMQP 1.0
> standard)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
