Support for javax.jms.TextMessage [SWS-255]

[gregturn]

Tom Lambrechts opened SWS-255 and commented

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

---

Attachments:

• JmsMessageReceiver.java (2.35 kB)
• JmsReceiverConnection.java (6.98 kB)

Issue Links:

• Return a javax.jms.TextMessage as response of a java.jms.TextMessage [SWS-256] #412 Return a javax.jms.TextMessage as response of a java.jms.TextMessage
  ("is duplicated by")

Referenced from: commits 2d34abe, 9376403

1 votes, 1 watchers

[gregturn]

Tom Lambrechts commented

Added TextMessage

[gregturn]

Tom Lambrechts commented

Implementation for TextMessage

[gregturn]

Arjen Poutsma commented

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.

[gregturn]

Tom Lambrechts commented

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.

[gregturn]

Arjen Poutsma commented

Closing 1.5 M2 issues.