On 04/22/2013 06:19 PM, Fraser Adams wrote:
The exchange itself is not going away though, neither is the headers
exchange. All I'm saying is that the use of selectors will offer a
simpler, richer approach.
Isn't that sentence kind of pertinent to the whole thread though. One of
the key premises that you mentioned at the outset was around the
x-bindings stuff, but am I not correct in thinking that x-bindings is
*the* only way to specify bindings from the headers and xml exchanges?
For 1.0 filters will be used to convey the equivalent information. At
present that works only for direct and topic exchanges. Once selectors
are fixed for this case, then it will be possible to get logic
equivalent (and even richer) than an actual headers binding.
So doesn't that rather imply that if these exchanges are not going away
then there does need to be a mechanism in the Address String to allow
users to specify the mappings. Now as discussed earlier it might be
possible to replace the headers exchange with selectors for most if not
all use cases, so the issue there likely becomes one of integration for
any system that makes significant use of headers exchange, but for the
xml exchange there would seem fewer choices given its ability to match
on message body. If x-bindings is currently the only way to specify the
xquery then there'd need to be an equivalent?
Yes, to fully exploit the xml exchange from 1.0 there would need to be a
filter defined for an xquery. The xml exchange is specific to qpidd at
present. I've created a JIRA for addressing that:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4766
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
