On 9/25/06, Steven Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 21/09/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/21/06, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think yes - it makes a whole lot more sense to send a message to an > > exchange than to send it to a destination. > > From an API perspective, what is the difference? Its not like a > Destination in JMS/NMS has much semantics to it - its just a URI like > in REST.From the point of view of publishing a JMS Destination maps to a pair in AMQP: the exchange + the routing key. From the point of view of consuming a JMS Destination maps to the queue name in AMQP (plus perhaps a few flags like no-local). Although that queue need to be bound to an exchange in the correct way. In an AMQP mapping a JMS Destination has 3 "duties". It provides enough information to enable: 1. Construction and configuration of the queue (exchange.declare, queue.declare, queue.bind) 2. Publishing (basic.publish) 3. Consuming (basic.consume) Steve.
So it sounds to me that something like CMS can still abstract out your protocol but still give you access to all the features of you broker. The destination just needs to carry the exchange, and routing info. -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
