Hello, I was looking at QPIDJMS-220 [1] to see whether we could add support for shared subscriptions to the Qpid Broker for Java and was wondering about the proposed name of the connection/link capability: SHARED-SUBS That seems very generic. Considering this is a vendor specific extension would a more scoped name be more appropriate? I saw that there seems to be precedent [2] for this naming convention: APACHE.ORG:SHARED-SUBS But then again, if my reading of the code is correct, the QPIDJMS client does not seem to follow that naming convention. Is there a reason for this?
Another question that came up when reading [1] was the use of "global" to describe the namespace for subscriptions without clientId. In my mind that is a bit unfortunate because to me it suggests something global is also available locally and when considering uniqueness you would consider local AND global. What it is used for in this context seems to be an anonymous namespace in contrast to the ones named by clientId. In other words it is a sibling to the other namespaces rather than at a different level of the abstract space hierarchy. Kind regards, Lorenz [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPIDJMS-220 [2] https://www.amqp.org/specification/1.0/filters --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
