Did you guys act on this discussion? It seems to relate to what I've
encountered with the web console testing of JMS Priority...
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-3093.
Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/JMSPriority-and-act
On 27 July 2010 07:01, wrote:
> Yes, I reckon they should be int. Maybe setPriority should throw an
> exception if the input priority is out of range.
I'd have thought we'd have to add this to the JMS TCK as its a change
in behaviour. Maybe for now just log a warning? That won't have any
TCK iss
: JMSPriority and activeMQ
Andrew,
What is your suggestion that would work in the unsigned java world. I
guess
the getPriority and setPriority are required by the spec to be int
primitive
types.
Clark
www.ttmsolutions.com
ActiveMQ reference guide at
http://bit.ly/AMQRefGuide
andrew.marlow
efer to
> http://www.bnpparibas.co.uk/en/information/legal_information.asp?Code=ECAS-845C5H
>
> for additional disclosures.
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/JMSPriority-and-activeMQ-tp29266853p29268467.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hello,
It looks to me like ActiveMQ uses a byte to hold the message priority and
treats it as a signed integer. This makes the range -127 to +128.
According to page 34, section 3.4.10 of the JMS spec, priorities are in
the range 0 to 9.
I have also found that IBMs MQSeries, which offers a JMS
