On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 15:37 +0000, Martin Ritchie wrote: [snip] > > > Examples > > > direct://amq.direct/SimpleQueue > > > direct://amq.direct/UnusuallyBoundQueue?routingkey='queue' > > > topic://amq.topic?routingkey='stocks.#' > > > topic://amq.topic?routingkey='stocks.nyse.ibm' > > > > Using exchange types as the protocol prefix of a URL is a bad idea, you > > would never be able to standardize it with IANA or whoever monitors > > these things. The set of exchange types is open to change in the future > > but URL protocol prefixes must be unique forever. > > > > Also this format abuses the prefix://host/path convention for internet > > protocols. > > This isn't an Internet protocol URL it just looks like one. This is a > BindingURL for binding a Destination(Queue/Topic/Header) to a routing > key. IANA should have nothing to say about it. The AMQP WG do need to > define this for interop.
In that case it might be better to refer to it as a "binding identifier" or "binding name". It's not a URL at all, since it doesn't provide information how to locate a binding on the network. Its not a URI either since it can only be interpreted in the context of a broker, so it's not a universal identifier. Cheers, Alan.
