On 11/16/16 5:57 PM, Justin Bertram wrote:
0. isn't about auto-creation per-say, its about allowing protocol specific
handlers to create address objects as needed for things like subscriptions.
JMS durable subscription, MQTT retain, etc.
All of that is already in place. To be clear, subscriptions are just queues
(whether that's for JMS, STOMP, MQTT, etc.).
Rockin' =)
IHMO using the same prefix across protocols as much as possible would be super
dope.
I think we'd want to make this configurable so that it would be up to users.
Are you saying support making it configurable for each individual protocol?
Other messaging systems (namely, IBM MQ Remote Queues, Cluster Queues) support
fully qualified destination names.
This seems to me beyond the scope of this work. The addressing improvements
here are all intra-broker. I'm in favor of keeping the work narrowly focused
so our objectives remain clear.
I agree that remote broker addressing is out-of-scope for this first
round of implementation. I'm suggesting it might make sense to at least
accommodate it in the data model now, so there wouldn't be API breakage.
For example:
"queue:///" as the prefix (or some other uri scheme w/ triple
slashes) would support adding the remote broker part in later.
-Matt
