There is already a correlation-id header defined in the AMQ extensions: http://www.activemq.org/site/stomp.html - I was trying to reuse this header for the connect handshake. I don't feel that strongly one way or the other. The name "response-id" is fine - we'd just have to add another header to our list of extensions (we'd have to do that for the "command-id" header anyway).
Nate -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hiram Chirino Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:05 AM To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: STOMP and connect/connected handshake Cross posting to the stomp mailing list too since someone there might have some input on this. I like the idea about supporting a command-id header. I might prefer the correlation header to be called response-id instead of correlation-id. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nathan Mittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Jun 12, 2006 6:13 AM Subject: STOMP and connect/connected handshake To: [email protected] For the new activemq-cpp library, we need to extend the STOMP connect/connected handshake so that we get back a correlation-id for our response correlator. To do this, we need to send something in the connect request that contains a client-defined command-id. My first thought was to just reuse the message-id header, but that is typically reserved for cases when a client is expecting to acknowledge a message. So rather than risk breaking that paradigm, I created a new header "command-id" that is just used on the connect message. When the broker receives a connect request with a command-id header, it creates a connected response with a correlation-id set to the command-id of the original request. This way the client can treat the handshake as a true request/response. Does anyone see any problems with adding this to the broker? Regards, Nate -- Regards, Hiram
