Hi Gordon, * support for the assert option
This support includes disable all assertions, including the existence of the endpoint, as we discussed some time ago? Thank you, Regards. On Seg, 2013-02-04 at 13:53 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote: > I hope to make some further progress with AMQP 1.0 support for the next > release. Some of the gaps remaining are: > > * inter-broker links > > This allows qpidd to be hooked into wider 1.0 based networks which > expands the options for building or evolving systems. > > * lifetime policy for nodes created on link establishment > > I.e. the 1.0 equivalents for auto-delete. This is important for the many > applications that use temporary reply queues etc. I think the 1.0 > defined behaviour will also be more intuitive and useful and may involve > some suggestions around improvements to the addressing options. > > * automatic failover and message replay for qpid::messaging > > One question here is likely to be around the division of work between > proton's protocol engine and the qpid::messaging implementation. (E.g. > The former already holds a buffer of outgoing messages, can this be used > or will the client need to duplicate that work). > > * support for the assert option > > I.e. the ability to specify the node properties and/or capabilities that > are assumed and to raise an error if these are not in fact met. > > * transaction support in both qpid::messaging and qpidd > > There is not a great deal of time left in the 0.22 release cycle and I'm > certainly not going to get all of these done in time for that. My > current plan is to work through them in the order I've listed them here. > I also want to focus on getting a set of 1.0 based tests for various > aspects of qpidd functionality that can be used to test & explore > interoperability with any other broker. > > I'd be delighted to hear from anyone with thoughts on any or all aspects > of this (or indeed on points relating to 1.0 support that I have not > considered). If you have a different view of what the priorities should > be, lets debate it further. I'd be especially eager to hear from anyone > planning to use 1.0 (or anyone using the 'assert' option in addresses, > is it useful in practice?). > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > -- Bruno Matos --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
