On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Bill Freeman <ke1g...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/29/2013 04:35 PM, Bill Freeman wrote:That console API is a bit of a
>> mixture of QMFv1 and QMFv2. I think there is a getObjectId() method, and
>> you can then call asMap() on that to get the v2 form.
>>
>
> Thanks. I'll have a read of the method code, call it with pdb, to see
> what it does for me.
>
OK. That gives me:
p qmfID.asMap()
{'_object_name': '18449', '_agent_name': '0'}
So these still don't seem very name like to me. I was interpreting the
name of the queue as being the value of the name property. I see that this
is arriving via Agent._handleQmfV1Message(), so I guess my broker(s) speak
V1.
I'm forced to re-ask whether, in the V1 context:
1. Are the name properties of queues still enforced to be unique within a
broker?
2. Are those _object_name values, '18449' still guaranteed to be stable
across, for example, deleting a pair of queues, restarting qpidd, and
re-creating the queues in the other order from which they were first
created?
3. Is that '18449' some kind of hash or what?
Thanks, Bill
