<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Tony Garnock-Jones <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tonyg@lshift.net">tonyg@lshift.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi Gavin,<br>
<br>
Yes, the ambiguity here is unfortunate.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I have opened a ticket in their Google Code repository, hopefully it will be addressed.�</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">The code currently (and at both the 1.5.3 and 1.5.5 tags) accepts any</div>
number of leading \r and \n characters before a command -- what exactly<br>
does the STOMP adapter do when it is sent a \0\n sequence as a frame<br>
terminator?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>It does not respond to the frame.</div><div>�</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Yes. I agree. I think it should, however, stay strict in terms of what<br>
it emits (i.e. continue to use plain \0 for its frame terminator when<br>
it's speaking) -- do you think that makes sense?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Absolutely, and in this case, the only problem for them is the poor sending, not receiving (even though the code is less than optimal, which is why I rewrote that part of the code).�</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks for the speedy updates.</div><div><br></div><div>Gavin</div></div>