Allow multiple destination per @JmsListener [SPR-13147]

[spring-projects-issues]

Ayman Musmar opened SPR-13147 and commented

Could you please allow setting of multiple destinations per @JmsListener method?
Now we must add multiple methods to support this, if we want one class/method to handle multiple destinations.

---

Affects: 4.1.6

Referenced from: commits e81a430, 4631add

[spring-projects-issues]

Stéphane Nicoll commented

I am not super fan of that option for two reasons:

1. This goes too far of hiding what happens behind the scenes: we would need to effectively create one container per destination because that's how the infra works right now. So if you set a priority of "2-10" with 3 destinations then you'll effectively triple that effect
2. Because of the reason above, the next move would be to ask how other things can be tune (besides the destination)

For those reasons, we would consider a repeatable annotation and a @JmsListeners annotation group for pre-Java8 use case, something like

@JmsListeners (
  @JmsListener("queue1"),
  @JmsListener(destination = "queue2", priority="2-10")
)
public void processFoo(Foo foo) { ... }

How does that sound? I am willing to give this a try for 4.2 still if that would suit your needs.

[spring-projects-issues]

Ayman Musmar commented

That sounds even better. One question ,just to be sure, regarding

@JmsListeners (
  @JmsListener("queue1"),
  @JmsListener(destination = "queue2", priority="2-10")
)
public void processFoo(Foo foo) { ... }

have you meant concurrency instead of priority?

[spring-projects-issues]

Stéphane Nicoll commented

Whatever. My point was to point out that once you have a way to provide multiple destination in the same annotation, the next move is to also allow to tune other properties (and we definitely don't want to do that like that).

-Please let me know if that suggestion works out for you.- Sorry, I read your comment too fast :)

[spring-projects-issues]

Stéphane Nicoll commented

This has been completed with a repeatable annotation. If you could give that a try with a fresh 4.2.0.BUILD-SNAPSHOT, that'd be nice.