Jonathan Robie wrote:
On the whole, I really like this. Comparing the example programs to the
existing examples, I think it does simplify quite a bit.
A few thoughts:
1. Streaming data into or out of messages
I really want to be able to stream into or out of messages directly.
Instead of:
message_data << "Message " << i;
message.setData(message_data.str());
I would like to be able to do something like:
message.getData() << "Message " << i;
The problem here is that there are many different ways that users might want to
encode their messages. ostream-style streaming as human-readable strings is
great for demos but quite unlikely for a real application. So I would be
reluctant to build it into the Message class. I think it's best to keep
Message's role entirely separate from the business of encoding, so users can
format their data using any method they like and then attach it to the message.
4. I notice you do not use keyword arguments. Is the move away from them
intentional? Why?
Keyword arguments are not common in C++. Being mapped directly from the
protocol, the existing API has functions with a LOT of arguments so the keywords
are very helpful. However a protocol-neutral API designed for C++ programmers
should be able to avoid such long argument lists.
Cheers,
Alan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
