[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Lorenz Quack reopened QPID-7606:
--------------------------------
I just noticed that the UI for choosing the alternative binding behaves a
little bit weird.
The dropdown list has the aritificial entries {{-- Queues \-\-}} and {{\-\-
Exchanges --}}. When a user selects one of them the UI does not report any
warning or error. Instead it silently disables the alternative binding feature.
Alex suggested to potentially use
[SelectOptGroups|https://gibbok.github.io/dijit-select-optgroup/]. That seems
like a reasonable suggestion to me.
Maybe we could also add an artificial entry to explicitly disable the feature.
Currently one has to ignore the drop down list and manually delete the content
of the field.
> Generalise Queue|Exchange#alternateExchange as alternateBinding
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: QPID-7606
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7606
> Project: Qpid
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Java Broker
> Reporter: Keith Wall
> Assignee: Alex Rudyy
> Fix For: qpid-java-broker-7.0.0
>
> Attachments: alternate-binding.tar.gz
>
>
> Queues and exchanges should have something akin to an "alternate binding"
> rather than an alternate exchange. From this we can simplify the DLQ
> implementation to remove the need for DLEs (or at worst have a single DLE).
> Alternate Bindings could be modelled as {{\{destination, arguments\}}}. A
> supported argument might be {{replacementRoutingKey}} which if set could
> direct the routing through the alternate(s) (This is separate - see
> QPID-7771).
> This work includes:
> * changes to the model object themselves and the routing algorithms
> * update the configuration upgrades to remap Exchange#alternativeExchange and
> Queue#alternativeExchange into the new model.
> * the facility for automatic creation of a DLQ should be retained but it can
> be simplified to not create an DLE exchange.
> * On upgrade, existing users' DLQ/DLEs must be retained as is, that is, there
> is no requirement to eliminate existing DLEs. This is because we have no way
> to predict if the users made additional changes to these objects.
> * update UI
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
