On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> On 4 March 2014 14:11, Gordon Sim wrote:
>
> > On 03/04/2014 12:38 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> >>
> >> On 03/04/2014 11:00 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The naive approach fo
On 4 March 2014 14:11, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 03/04/2014 12:38 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
>>
>> On 03/04/2014 11:00 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>>>
>>> The naive approach for a 1.0 address "foo" is (I guess) to look up on
the
broker
On 03/04/2014 12:38 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 03/04/2014 11:00 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
The naive approach for a 1.0 address "foo" is (I guess) to look up on the
broker side to see if the given there is an exchange named "foo" (in which
ca
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 03/04/2014 11:00 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>
>> The naive approach for a 1.0 address "foo" is (I guess) to look up on the
>> broker side to see if the given there is an exchange named "foo" (in which
>> case translate to 0-10 {exchange="foo", ro
On 03/04/2014 11:00 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
The naive approach for a 1.0 address "foo" is (I guess) to look up on the
broker side to see if the given there is an exchange named "foo" (in which
case translate to 0-10 {exchange="foo", routing-key=""}) or a queue named
"foo" (in which case translate
I'm currently trying to tidy up some of the message conversion code inside
the Java Broker, and wondering what the correct approach is with reply-to.
In 1.0 the reply-to address is a simple string (which may have some
structure when the OASIS Addressing spec is finalised, but until now can
really
