Aidan Skinner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Bryan Kearney<[email protected]> wrote:
The only thing I could see is that some of the exchange binding as done
through JMS is a bit odd. I create 3 JMS "Queues" which result in on QPID
queue being created with 2 bindings. If there was a more logical connection
between QPID queue and JMS Queue as well as binding and message selector
then perhaps it might be easier.
That seems... odd. I would expect 3 JMS queues named A, B and C to
result in 3 Qpid queues called A, B and C bound to amq.direct with
routing key of A, B or C respectively.
I would actually expect (or at least prefer!) those 3 JMS queues to
correspond to three queues named A, B and C bound only to the default
(nameless) exchange.
As mentioned before that fact that queues are dynamically created when
you subscribe to them but not when you publish to them is odd.
I agree that the mapping of JMS to AMQP in its current form is not
always the most intuitive. Trying to do something that might be natural
in AMQP through JMS is also not always intuitive (and on occasion not
possible).
However my own recommendation would be to use JMS and point out the
awkward aspects of this mapping with a view to improving things. Having
a stable API is a very useful thing (as Mr Greig has pointed out more
than once!).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
