The 1.1 spec says nothing about sequential processing of frames. We should define whether sequential processing of frames is guaranteed or not. If not (like Brian recommends) then we should explain it and add a proper disclaimer so that client writers know what they have to do to make sure processing did happen on the server side.
We should probably also review the spec and use "process" consistently. For instance, the BEGIN text contains "... during a transaction will be handled atomically ...". Maybe "handled" should be replaced by "processed".
See also:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/stomp-spec/yjSqz9Z0E-Q
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/stomp-spec/2Kx3-vzxgDM
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/stomp-spec/HgSqj7NFVx4
The 1.1 spec says nothing about sequential processing of frames. We should define whether sequential processing of frames is guaranteed or not. If not (like Brian recommends) then we should explain it and add a proper disclaimer so that client writers know what they have to do to make sure processing did happen on the server side.
We should probably also review the spec and use "process" consistently. For instance, the BEGIN text contains "... during a transaction will be handled atomically ...". Maybe "handled" should be replaced by "processed".
See also:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/stomp-spec/yjSqz9Z0E-Q
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/stomp-spec/2Kx3-vzxgDM
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/stomp-spec/HgSqj7NFVx4