On Ter, 2013-05-14 at 14:32 +0100, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 05/14/2013 02:03 PM, Bruno Matos wrote: > > I don't understand the use of NONE vs ANONYMOUS, sometimes they seam > > exchangeable... I saw ANONYMOUS in the Domain initialization of > > mechanisms internal variable either. > > IN AMQP 1.0 a SASL negotiation is optional. The NONE option for the > mechanism is a way to indicate you want to use AMQP 1.0 without any SASL > at all. The ANONYMOUS mechanism involves an actual SASL handshake even > though it doesn't actually do any authentication. Does that make any sense?
Yes, it makes sense. I think I found a clue, I was creating the domain with the property 'mechanisms' but the Domain constructor expects 'sasl_mechanisms'. This means that domain was thinking it should use ANONYMOUS which leads to the selection of the SaslClient as the codec and not the Wrapper. But the problem persists, and as I saw some places in code that uses only 'mechanisms' I changed the 'sasl_mechanisms' definition to 'mechanisms' but I still receive 'No protocol received closing' on the destination broker. There are more messages going from source broker to destination broker now, but it seams that something is still missing. Regards. -- Bruno Matos --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
