On 02/10/2010 06:53 PM, Robert Godfrey wrote:
Priority Queues: These have been in the Java Broker for ages... I
would have hoped that they have been implemented in a compatible way
on the C++ broker - but I have seen no discussion on this. Can
someone point to the documentation around this for t
Robert Godfrey wrote:
On 11 February 2010 20:11, Rafael Schloming wrote:
Robert Godfrey wrote:
On a related note what does Priority Delivery in "Client Features" mean?
This is the ability for the client to reorder messages in its prefetch queue
based on message priority. It's not the same as
On 11 February 2010 20:11, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> Robert Godfrey wrote:
>>
>> On a related note what does Priority Delivery in "Client Features" mean?
>
> This is the ability for the client to reorder messages in its prefetch queue
> based on message priority. It's not the same as server-side p
Robert Godfrey wrote:
On a related note what does Priority Delivery in "Client Features" mean?
This is the ability for the client to reorder messages in its prefetch
queue based on message priority. It's not the same as server-side
priority queues, although obviously it is a complimentary fea
Robert Godfrey wrote:
On a related note what does Priority Delivery in "Client Features" mean?
This is the ability for the client to reorder messages in its prefetch
queue based on message priority. It's not the same as server-side
priority queues, although obviously it is a complimentary fea
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 21:15 +0100, Robert Godfrey wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >
> >>
> >> Can you also be a little clearer on what each of the "External Tools" is?
> > These are separate tools to accomplish management tasks. In the case of
> > the C++ broker, I am thinking of qpid-tool, qpid-config, qpid-
[snip]
>
>>
>> Can you also be a little clearer on what each of the "External Tools" is?
> These are separate tools to accomplish management tasks. In the case of
> the C++ broker, I am thinking of qpid-tool, qpid-config, qpid-cluster,
> etc. I don't want to use those names, as they are implementa
Hi Rob,
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 19:53 +0100, Robert Godfrey wrote:
> Hi Kim,
>
> I've done a few updates for the Java Broker side of things... A couple
> of questions
>
> Producer Flow Control: there is a link from this feature to a
> non-existent page...
Correct - The syntax for an internal wiki
Hi Kim,
I've done a few updates for the Java Broker side of things... A couple
of questions
Producer Flow Control: there is a link from this feature to a
non-existent page...
The Java broker does provide producer Flow Control although only
currently for 0-8/0-9/0-9-1 ... if someone can point at
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 12:13 -0500, Steve Huston wrote:
> Hi Kim,
>
> Nice job and very badly needed.
>
> What's the difference between 'P' and 'N'? For example, SSL is not
> supported on Windows at 0.6, but is at 0.7 - is that a 'N' or a 'P'?
>
> Notes on the other Windows items:
>
> WCF Client
Hi Kim,
Nice job and very badly needed.
What's the difference between 'P' and 'N'? For example, SSL is not
supported on Windows at 0.6, but is at 0.7 - is that a 'N' or a 'P'?
Notes on the other Windows items:
WCF Client speaks 0-10 only (same as C++ client)
WCF Client supports Transactions and
> -Original Message-
> From: Kerry Bonin [mailto:kerrybo...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:54 AM
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 0.6 Feature Matrix
>
>
> One comment - as I understand it, the Linux brokers support
> both federatio
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:54 -0600, Kerry Bonin wrote:
> One comment - as I understand it, the Linux brokers support both federation
> and clustering, while the Windows broker supports only federation, as qpid
> clustering relies on OpenAIS, for which there are no publicly available
> Windows ports.
One comment - as I understand it, the Linux brokers support both federation
and clustering, while the Windows broker supports only federation, as qpid
clustering relies on OpenAIS, for which there are no publicly available
Windows ports.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Kim van der Riet wrote:
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
