Description of problem:
When you create destination (topic or queue) dynamically trough ADDR syntax in Java code, even when you set auto-delete and exclusive options to false , created destinations have auto-delete and exclusive enabled.
other options defined in x-declare section seems to work fine.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
beta5 
qpid-cpp-client-0.7.946106-11.el5
qpid-cpp-server-0.7.946106-11.el5

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. create dynamic destination:

 Ex.

   Destination queue = ssn.createQueue("sales");

   String addr = "ADDR:amq.direct/x512; {create: receiver, " +
        "link : {name : 'MY.RESP.QUEUE', " + 
        "x-declare : { auto-delete: false, exclusive: false, " +
                     "'qpid.max_size': 1000, 'qpid.policy_type': ring } } }";
   Destination queue = ssn.createQueue(addr);


   Destination topic =  ssn.createTopic("use.news");

   String addr = "ADDR:vehicles/bus; " + 
        "{ " + 
          "create: always, " +                        
          "node: " + 
          "{" +
               "type: topic, " +
               "x-declare: " +
               "{ " + 
                   "type:direct, " + 
                   "auto-delete: true, " +
                   "'qpid.msg_sequence': 1, " +
                   "'qpid.ive': 1" + 
               "}" +
          "}, " +
          "link: {name : my-topic, " +
              "x-bindings: [{exchange : 'vehicles', key : car}, " +
                           "{exchange : 'vehicles', key : van}]" + 
          "}" + 
        "}";

     Destination topic = ssn.createTopic(addr);    

2.When this java code is running and client for example send messages, check queues

qpid-config queues
  
Actual results:
Queues dynamically created have exclusive and auto-delete flag set, even when they should not. And they disappear after session is closed (auto-delete)

Expected results:
they should follow what is set in x-declare section. For example disable auto-delete or exclusive

Additional info:

This i found during verification of bz616457 but since the bug is about presence of ADDR syntax, i created extra bug for this