JMSType is a reserved header in JMS, for use at the application
level. I think what you are proposing is more accurately an ActiveMQ
specific transform header. I think this type of transform should
either be a real, arbitrary, pluggable, transform mechanism, or
should not be done.
I would
On Jun 12, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Nathan Mittler wrote:
Agreed ... using the "type" header is not an option.
--- From the bug report ---
It isn't possible to reuse the "type" header (JMSType) for the
purpose of sending through the information as to what type of message
it is (text or bytes). S
roach), once it's verified to
be working.
2) step back and create a pluggable framework.
Regards,
Nate
-Original Message-
From: James Strachan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:57 AM
To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: STOMP and JMSType
FWIW I
cuss
the pluggable framework, but it seems that that is a separate issue from
what I'm trying to do here (...and probably literally a separate JIRA
issue).
Regards,
Nate
-Original Message-
From: Brian McCallister [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:20 PM
To: activemq-dev@
view,
the cleanest implementation I can think of is to have an interface
which takes a Send (or something like) and returns an ActiveMQMessage.
I am quite strongly against using using application level metadata
(which content-type is in Stomp and JMSType is in JMS) for mapping
information.
ssage, it's a
header that controls the send and subscribe operations.
Regards,
Nate
-Original Message-
From: Brian McCallister [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:20 PM
To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: STOMP and JMSType
On Jun 13, 2006, at 8:11 AM,
On 6/13/06, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 13, 2006, at 10:36 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> The think your views are a bit STOMP point of view centric. bytes
> messages work fine when both end assume you are just moving around
> bytes messages.. and it's true everything can ev
Could you guys point me to a place in AMQ where this sort of thing is being
done? That would save me a lot of searching =)
I'm viewing this problem from the client side - the Stomp C++ client that
Tim Bish and I are writing currently supports text and bytes messages. So
when I get a stomp frame
On Jun 13, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Nathan Mittler wrote:
Could you guys point me to a place in AMQ where this sort of thing
is being
done? That would save me a lot of searching =)
I'm viewing this problem from the client side - the Stomp C++
client that
Tim Bish and I are writing currently supp
On 6/13/06, Nathan Mittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could you guys point me to a place in AMQ where this sort of thing is being
done? That would save me a lot of searching =)
Its not really done anywhere else :-(
I'm viewing this problem from the client side - the Stomp C++ client that
Ti
On 6/14/06, Mittler, Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For map messages, on the c++ side of things we would essentially have to
write a schema file for the layout of a map message. The c++ stomp
client would have to be coded against that schema to properly parse the
message. Unfortunately, we d
Excellent! I'm breathing a sigh of relief :)
-Original Message-
From: James Strachan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:55 AM
To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: STOMP and JMSType
On 6/14/06, Mittler, Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
On Jun 13, 2006, at 3:06 PM, Nathan Mittler wrote:
So it sounds like we're all in agreement on the content-type
header. For
text, it would be something like "text" and for bytes it would be
"application/octet-stream". So this would not be an application-level
header, but would be used by my
On Jun 14, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Mittler, Nathan wrote:
Ok, so application-level is referring to the C++ library, not the user
of the library? If so that eliminates the need for another header
like
"amq-msg-type".
We still want the transform header for the stomp adaptor though, in
order to
On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/14/06, Nathan Mittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A whiteboard would be really handy ... you guys aren't in NY by any
chance,
> are you? ;)
>
DOH I was just there last week (for 3 hours)! Want to visit Tampa
Florida?
HA ... give me
On 6/14/06, Nathan Mittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 6/14/06, Nathan Mittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A whiteboard would be really handy ... you guys aren't in NY by any
> chance,
> > are you? ;)
> >
>
> DOH I was just there last
16 matches
Mail list logo