On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/01/2013 02:12 PM, Bill Freeman wrote:
>
>> 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 suspect it is merely that your use of the console API is following a v1
> path. Unless you are using a very old broker, it will speak both v2 and v1.
> I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable about that API to help but will try and
> get hold of someone who is...
>
The qmf.console.Agent instance that is calling my qmf.console.Console
sub-class's objectProps and objectStats methods does report itself (using
pdb's p as:
Agent(v2) at bank 1.0 (BrokerAgent)
These are for asynchronous updates, that, I believe, come as a result of
having initialized the session with rcvObjects and userBindings both True,
and having indicated an interest in queues in the filters. I presumed that
the v1 path was because the message received parsed that way.
>
> There is a much simpler, more basic library available for v2 available as
> well: https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/qpid/trunk/qpid/tools/src/**
> py/qpidtoollibs/broker.py<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/trunk/qpid/tools/src/py/qpidtoollibs/broker.py>.
> Depending on your needs and your existing ties to the console API that may
> be worth a look.
I will, indeed, look at that. I don't suppose that there are examples
using it, or a tutorial?
>
>
> 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?
>>
>> I'm still curious about what the '18449' is.
Thanks, Bill
