On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 13:14 +0100, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 06/22/2012 08:47 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 20:10 +0100, Gordon Sim wrote: > >> ... > >> I think the 'amqp' scheme should really be specified by the OASIS AMQP > >> member section. > > > > I entirely agree with this, but in the meantime it will help qpid a lot > > to use the same connection url means. > > > >> ... > >> We may feel we have to live with our current abuses a little longer. We > >> may want to make our client libraries more uniform in their abuse. > > > > I think this is my position although I'm not clear that there is > > actually any abuse going on - but that is entirely subjective. > > Since we both agree that a scheme identified as 'amqp' should properly > be defined by (or at least in conjunction with) those in charge of the > AMQP specification, using 'amqp' as an identifier for ad-hoc schemes is > not really legitimate.
Ah finally I understand this point, sorry to be so dense. * Your objection is that using the "amqp" scheme name for a syntax not sanctioned by the AMQP working group. * I agree this is a problem. Actually I'd personally be entirely happy in this context to use "qpid" etc. or similar as a scheme name instead (to be used in the proposed unified scheme, with perhaps "amqp" as a back compatible alternative) In fact it seems to me that proving a url format in the context of qpid or some other amqp implementation makes good sense before specifying something into the amqp spec itself --- I agree with the desire not to expand the scheme to amqps, amqpr etc. As another suggestion I quite like using + to separate subordinate parts of the scheme like this "amqp+ssl", "amqp+rdma" - this is used in a few schemes although I'm not sure about whether "+" used like this has an official meaning. This could be "qpid+.." if we don't appropriate the amqp scheme name. --- As I mentioned there is a definition in the 0-10 spec of a syntax. I don't really like this syntax, but it is "official" inasmuch as it is in the spec. I could give a detailed critique of the spec, but this is not the place really. However this spec is not intended to be used to generally specify a broker connection rather it is defined solely in the context of redirect and failover. And it doesn't even seem to be complete (the tls_prot_addr specification is absent). Do any of the other AMQP implementations support this URL specification for redirect/failover? If not what is the status of an unused/unimplemented definition in an evolving spec? As far as I can see there is no equivalent definition in the AMQP 1.0 spec - did I miss it? If I did what is the scope of use of this URI definition? If it is absent how does 1.0 deal with redirect/failover? Andrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
