>From a user point of view ... if the client libraries have independent
releases, it might be more clear to many people that they do not need to
use exactly the same version of the client library as is the broker
version. That seems to be quite popular believe among the people connecting
to our bro
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Ken Giusti wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Bill Freeman"
> > To: "users"
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:23:04 AM
> > Subject: Re: Maybe bug, maybe novice mistake, or maybe my python qpid
> library is too old.
> >
> > Ken,
> >
>
>
>
>
+1 from me as well. I think this would be a good improvement on the
existing structure and benefit everyone by allowing for schedules more
tailored to the specific components, and in turn enable us to better meet
the needs of their users.
We would need to investigate how some of the changes might
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 09:55:22AM -0400, Justin Ross wrote:
> Hi, everyone. We've recently been discussing the components of our
> project in a couple different contexts. This is a proposal to take
> the outcomes of those discussion and apply them to how Qpid is
> organized.
+1
--
Darryl L. P
- Original Message -
> From: "Bill Freeman"
> To: "users"
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:23:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Maybe bug, maybe novice mistake, or maybe my python qpid library
> is too old.
>
> Ken,
>
>
> As long as I have your attention, does ;{mode:browse} affect the nee
Hi Ken,
I don't know about the Qpid 0.18 release, but he might be using MRG-M 2.3
which reports it self as Qpid 0.18 and contains the SSL support in
qpid-config.
Regards
Jakub
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Ken Giusti wrote:
> Hi D James,
>
> I'm pretty sure the ssl options were added to qp
Can you post the errors you are getting? I'm using this command and it
seems to work for me:
qpid-config -b amqps://@localhost:10101 queues
--ssl-certificate=./qpid/0101/temp/
--ssl-key=./qpid/0101/temp/ --sasl-mechanism=EXTERNAL
The PEM file is a file containing both private and public key of th
+1 on this.
Having the flexibility to have individual release cycles for each component
will be huge advantage for us.
However as Justin mentioned, we shouldn't rule out a Qpid wide release
perhaps once a year or so.
>From a users perspective this is a great thing to have, bcos all the
components b
Ken,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Ken Giusti wrote:
> Good catch Bill - this is a bug, and I've entered a JIRA for it:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4732
>
> That said, I would urge you not to use the QPID connection directly. The
> API doesn't explicitly expose this, and
Hi D James,
I'm pretty sure the ssl options were added to qpid-config _after_ 0.18. I
think they first appeared in the 0.20 release.
Does "qpid-config --help" list them?
-K
- Original Message -
> From: "djames"
> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 5:41:35 PM
> S
Good catch Bill - this is a bug, and I've entered a JIRA for it:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4732
That said, I would urge you not to use the QPID connection directly. The API
doesn't explicitly expose this, and we probably will be moving the QMF client
to use the client messagin
I'm +1 this... Obviously we need to understand better the amount of work to
achieve the separation of the components... but if this were in place then
we wouldn't be facing the sort of issues we are currently experiencing with
the 0.22 release which would strongly benefit from not having the releas
Hi, everyone. We've recently been discussing the components of our
project in a couple different contexts. This is a proposal to take
the outcomes of those discussion and apply them to how Qpid is
organized.
Thanks for taking a look,
Justin
## Related discussions
-
http://qpid.2158936.n2.nab
On 10 April 2013 13:38, Fraser Adams wrote:
> Hi Gordon,
> Comments inline below.
>
> Frase
>
>
> On 09/04/13 19:07, Gordon Sim wrote:
>
>> On 6 April 2013 10:40, Fraser Adams
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
[.. snip ..]
>
> Re "using a selector " I have to say that I'm definitely a big fan of
> message
Hi Gordon,
Comments inline below.
Frase
On 09/04/13 19:07, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 6 April 2013 10:40, Fraser Adams wrote:
"
The x-bindings property is not currently supported for AMQP 1.0 in
nodes or links. This has really been a question of priorities rather
than ruling out any mapping. Thoug
15 matches
Mail list logo
