On 03/15/2010 05:48 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Gordon Sim<g...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 03/11/2010 11:41 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
1.2 Syntax
<broker> [ ;<options> ] [ ,<broker> [ ;<options> ]] *
Where broker is::
<protocol>:// [ host [ ":" port ] ] (protocol = {tcp|vm|rdma}
The c++ client currently supports the AMQP 0-10 definition of a url syntax.
Do we want to support that more widely? It would be good to improve
consistency across clients a little.
Well my motivation behind the thread was to get this out in the open.
IMO I think we as a project *must* have the same connection url/string
syntax across all clients.
I thought I'd start with the Java side and then take it from there.
Understood. I am responding by pointing out that there is a url scheme
defined in the 0-10 specification which is currently used by the c++
client. The question of whether we want to support that more widely
seems to me to be worth answering early in any proposal around
unification of url schemes (whichever way we answer it).
The connection "URL" has been used for two reasons.
1) To identify which broker(s) to connect to
2) As a configuration mechanism.
Isn't the former a specific case for the latter?
My issue is if we treat the whole thing as a "URL" then supporting the
latter makes the whole thing ugly and error prone.
The Java connection url is a case in point.
I would rather treat it as a connection string which consists of two
**distinct** parts.
a) A broker (identified by a URL - ex tcp://localhost:5672/vhost )
b) A bunch of key:value pairs associated with the broker url.
You could of course view the url as one of the set of options that can
be configured via the key-value pairs...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
