On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Gordon Sim 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 included
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 included in URLs.
Does the currently defined URL scheme for AMQP 0-10 s
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 Conway wrote:
On 03/12/2010 10:40 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Alan Conway
wrote:
On 03/11/2010 06:41 PM,
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Rafael Schloming 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 not really bot
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 in
Alan Conway wrote:
On 03/15/2010 01:53 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Alan Conway wrote:
On 03/12/2010 10:40 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Alan Conway
wrote:
On 03/11/2010 06:41 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
Hi All,
Currentl
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, 201
On 03/15/2010 01:53 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Alan Conway wrote:
On 03/12/2010 10:40 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Alan Conwaywrote:
On 03/11/2010 06:41 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
Hi All,
Currently quite a bit of opti
fail whenever 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 &
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 03/15/2010 05:48 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/11/2010 11:41 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
1.2 Syntax
[ ; ] [ , [ ; ]] *
Wher
On 03/15/2010 05:48 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 03/11/2010 11:41 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
1.2 Syntax
[ ;] [ ,[ ;]] *
Where broker is::
:// [ host [ ":" port ] ](protocol = {tcp|vm|rdma}
The c++
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Alan Conway wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 10:40 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Alan Conway wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/11/2010 06:41 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
Hi All,
Currently quite a bit of options can be configured vi
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Gordon Sim 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 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 c
On 03/12/2010 10:40 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Alan Conway 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.
I
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Alan Conway 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 of a "
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 c
17 matches
Mail list logo
