Alan Conway wrote:
On 03/15/2010 01:53 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Alan Conwayacon...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/12/2010 10:40 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Alan Conwayacon...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 03/11/2010 06:41 PM, Rajith
I think the first step we need to take before actually thinking about
the syntax is to put together a matrix with all the connection
parameters for all the clients.
Historically we've picked a common syntax (URL) but not really bothered
to ensure that we use the syntax the same way. This is
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Rafael Schloming rafa...@redhat.com wrote:
I think the first step we need to take before actually thinking about the
syntax is to put together a matrix with all the connection parameters for
all the clients.
Historically we've picked a common syntax (URL) but
On 03/19/2010 07:42 AM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
Alan Conway wrote:
On 03/15/2010 01:53 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Alan Conwayacon...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/12/2010 10:40 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Alan
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Gordon Sim g...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/19/2010 02:57 PM, Alan Conway wrote:
URLs are a widely accepted format for addressing and part of the AMQP
0-10 standard for addressing brokers, so I think it would be valuable
to make it easy for these strings to be
the string fails to parse into a valid URI, long before
the Qpid transport layer gets called.
Cliff
-Original Message-
From: Rajith Attapattu [mailto:rajit...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 10:48 AM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Client configuration Connection URL
into a valid URI, long before
the Qpid transport layer gets called.
Cliff
-Original Message-
From: Rajith Attapattu [mailto:rajit...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 10:48 AM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Client configuration Connection URL
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM
On 03/15/2010 01:53 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Alan Conwayacon...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/12/2010 10:40 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Alan Conwayacon...@redhat.comwrote:
On 03/11/2010 06:41 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On 03/12/2010 10:40 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Alan Conwayacon...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/11/2010 06:41 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
Hi All,
Currently quite a bit of options can be configured via the Java
Connection URL, which tends to make it ungainly and
On 03/11/2010 11:41 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
Hi All,
Currently quite a bit of options can be configured via the Java
Connection URL, which tends to make it ungainly and quite error prone.
If we are to think in terms of a Connection String instead of a
Connection URL , then I believe we
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Gordon Sim g...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/11/2010 11:41 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
Hi All,
Currently quite a bit of options can be configured via the Java
Connection URL, which tends to make it ungainly and quite error prone.
If we are to think in terms of a
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Alan Conway acon...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/12/2010 10:40 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Alan Conwayacon...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/11/2010 06:41 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
Hi All,
Currently quite a bit of options can be
On 03/15/2010 05:48 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Gordon Simg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/11/2010 11:41 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
1.2 Syntax
broker[ ;options] [ ,broker[ ;options]] *
Where broker is::
protocol:// [ host [ :
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Gordon Sim g...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/15/2010 05:48 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Gordon Simg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/11/2010 11:41 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
1.2 Syntax
broker [ ;options ] [ ,broker [
On 03/11/2010 06:41 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
Hi All,
Currently quite a bit of options can be configured via the Java
Connection URL, which tends to make it ungainly and quite error prone.
If we are to think in terms of a Connection String instead of a
Connection URL , then I believe we
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Alan Conway acon...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/11/2010 06:41 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
Hi All,
Currently quite a bit of options can be configured via the Java
Connection URL, which tends to make it ungainly and quite error prone.
If we are to think in terms
Hi All,
Currently quite a bit of options can be configured via the Java
Connection URL, which tends to make it ungainly and quite error prone.
If we are to think in terms of a Connection String instead of a
Connection URL , then I believe we could come up with a more simpler
solution.
Therefore
17 matches
Mail list logo
