The 1.0 client has no built in failover handling so you would either need
to handle that yourself, or use a messaging framework that supports doing
such things for you.
To quote Rob Godfrey (who wrote the [prototype] AMQP 1.0 JMS client, and
co-wrote AMQP 1.0) from a few days ago:
"As to failover
Thanks for the heads-up (and the link to the 1.0 example); I wondered why the
package names were different.
I'm not seeing anything either in the linked example or in my quick scan of the
source code which references failover or multi-broker URLs. Does that mean that
client-side failover capabi
Hi,
What's the correct way to authenticate to an AMQP server using the
Messenger API?
I've tried including authentication information in the AMQP address as
described in org.apache.qpid.proton.messenger.Messenger javadoc like this:
amqp://user1:pwd1@127.0.0.1:5672/topic://test.foo
This doesn't s
The documentation you are referencing is actually for the completely
seperate AMQP 0-8/0-9/0-9-1/0-10 JMS client, rather than the AMQP 1.0 JMS
client you are trying to use, which should explain most of your issues. The
1.0 client was the result of prototyping work during creation of AMQP 1.0
itself
Adding some more specific bits to what Ted covered in his mail.though I
now see he just beat me to doing so himself, oh well :P
On 9 October 2013 19:22, Fraser Adams wrote:
> Hey all,
> The thread below on the dev list has prompted me to ask something that
> I've tentatively mentioned before
I'm having trouble connecting to a message broker (HornetQ 2.4.0-beta1) using
the Qpid JMS-over-AMQP client
(http://qpid.apache.org/releases/qpid-0.24/programming/book/QpidJMS.html).
I've run into two major roadblocks; for the first, I think that I have a
work-around, but the second is still f
Now, to answer your actual questions... See inline below.
On 10/09/2013 02:22 PM, Fraser Adams wrote:
Hey all,
The thread below on the dev list has prompted me to ask something that
I've tentatively mentioned before, but am still a bit embarrassed to
raise 'cause it probably makes me seem a b
Ted,
Can someone add your text to the community web pages and link parts to
appropriate pages?
i.e. can we use Frase's and your posts to augment the community pages rather
than just leaving here in list archives?
William
- Original Message -
> Frase,
>
> This is an excellent post,
Great post! +1.
The community needs to do more to explain, document, and promote.
William
- Original Message -
> Hey all,
> The thread below on the dev list has prompted me to ask something that
> I've tentatively mentioned before, but am still a bit embarrassed to
> raise 'cause it prob
Frase,
This is an excellent post, and I believe quite relevant. I'll try to
address your questions at an abstract level rather than point-by-point.
Your confusion is not unique, but quite justified.
AMQP 1.0 is simply a wire-level protocol specification for symmetric
point-to-point data co
Hey all,
The thread below on the dev list has prompted me to ask something that
I've tentatively mentioned before, but am still a bit embarrassed to
raise 'cause it probably makes me seem a bit stupid :-( here goes
anyway.
So I've kind of held off going down the AMQP 1.0 path partly due
On 10/09/2013 02:42 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 09 Oct 2013, at 3:27 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Oct 9 13:15:29 localhost qpidd[17764]: 2013-10-09 13:15:29 error Failed to
initialise SSL plugin: Failed to load certificate 'Server-Cert'
(qpid/sys/ssl/SslSocket.cpp:184)
"Server-Cert"
On 10/09/2013 01:25 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
OK - I think I'm confused as to what you are proposing then. I thought you
were looking for a way to standardise without client libraries having to
send properties / capabilities.
Perhaps it would be helpful to write out what you are thinking in some s
On 09 Oct 2013, at 3:27 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Oct 9 13:15:29 localhost qpidd[17764]: 2013-10-09 13:15:29 error Failed to
> initialise SSL plugin: Failed to load certificate 'Server-Cert'
> (qpid/sys/ssl/SslSocket.cpp:184)
> "Server-Cert"u,
Hi all,
I am trying to configure an SSL enabled version of the qpid-cpp broker, and I
am struggling to get it to work. The broker starts and runs as follows:
qpidd17764 0.3 2.3 239728 11692 ?Ssl 13:15 0:00
/usr/sbin/qpidd --data-dir /var/lib/qpidd --daemon --ssl-cert-db
sql:/e
On 9 October 2013 13:40, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 10/09/2013 12:10 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>
>> On 9 October 2013 11:24, Gordon Sim wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/08/2013 03:42 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>>>
The second case of defining some namespace pattern within the broker
wherein any unrecognized na
On 10/09/2013 12:10 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
On 9 October 2013 11:24, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 10/08/2013 03:42 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
The second case of defining some namespace pattern within the broker
wherein any unrecognized names will lead to node creation seems like a
broker specific feature w
On 9 October 2013 11:24, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 10/08/2013 03:42 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>
>> On 4 October 2013 13:23, Gordon Sim wrote:
>>
>> A common convenience is to allow queues or topics to be created on
>>> demand,
>>> i.e. having them come into existence when a link is attached. This is
On 10/09/2013 10:49 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 10/08/2013 04:24 PM, Bruno Matos wrote:
Are the messages sent to qmf.default.direct intercepted by the
broker and not redirected to 'regular' queues?
Yes, the messages are intercepted by the management agent and will only
be routed to any bound queu
On 10/08/2013 04:24 PM, Bruno Matos wrote:
Are the messages sent to qmf.default.direct intercepted by the
broker and not redirected to 'regular' queues?
Yes, the messages are intercepted by the management agent and will only
be routed to any bound queues if they are valid management commands
On 10/08/2013 02:37 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
For the record, Dispatch also uses this pattern to allocate a routable
address that exists for the lifetime of the Receiver/Link.
By 'this pattern' here you mean the behaviour defined in the
specification around the 'dynamic' field in termini, right?
J
On 10/08/2013 03:42 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
On 4 October 2013 13:23, Gordon Sim wrote:
A common convenience is to allow queues or topics to be created on demand,
i.e. having them come into existence when a link is attached. This is
useful where the messaging infrastructure is supposed to be a '
22 matches
Mail list logo
