All, I think we need to take a step back here and try to capture all the use cases discussed thus far, we've had a few use cases outlined here and plenty of discussion @ #apache-activemq channel. I think it's difficult to discuss solutions until everyone is on the same page when it comes to the requirements.
I'll start pulling this together, and reply here once I am done. Thanks for all the input so far. On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> wrote: > No. What I am thinking is that all addresses are prefixless. What you are >> really saying when you say “queue://foo” is not that I want to >> send/consume >> to/from an address “queue://foo” but that you want to send/consume to/from >> an address named “foo” and that you expect queue semantics on that >> address. >> >> If you don’t specify semantics with the address name. For example, let’s >> say in MQTT you send to “foo”. This message would be sent to 1 consumer >> that have specified “queue://foo” and all consumers that specified >> “topic://foo”. As far as Artemis is concerned the address is just "foo". >> The prefixes are added in the clients, and used by the protocol managers >> to >> ask Artemis for certain behaviours. >> > How do you see this use case working out? If a JMS client sends a message > to session.createQueue("foo") and Artemis auto-creates a "foo" > type="anycast". Then two MQTT clients (MQTT being topic-based) come around > a subscribe to "foo" do the MQTT clients round-robin the data or each get a > copy of the message?. Can we shelve this for now and pick it up once we have outlined all the use cases.
