On Qua, 2013-05-15 at 17:01 +0100, Bruno Matos wrote: > 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. >
It seams that if some message passes through the link before the --max-negotiate-time the problem disappear. I think its because AsynchIOHandler::readbuff only cancels the timer after 3 reads (as stated in the code) and the interlink doesn't seam to need all the handshake described. Regards. -- Bruno Matos --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
