> -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Sim [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: September-05-13 12:03 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Need help running the java send/recv example with the Qpid > java broker > > On 09/05/2013 04:36 PM, Jonathan Albrecht wrote: > > Does the proton protocol engine have support for authentication or is > > that outside the protocol? > > The protocol defines how to do authentication using SASL. The protocol > engine does expose this in a little more detail and has some basic support for > PLAIN. (It doesn't yet allow a SASL based encryption or signing layer though). > > However, I think the plan is to have the proton-j messenger support PLAIN at > least as well, it just hasn't been done yet. The c based messenger does > support plain as well as anonymous. Of course PLAIN on its own is not great, > so you would probably want to use SSL there as well (or indeed perhaps > instead of). Raise a JIRA at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON.
Thanks I will but I will need to read up on amqp auth first. > > As a side question, I'm trying to figure out what java client lib I > > should use with the qpid java broker if I don't want to use JMS. > > Just to satisfy my curiosity, can I ask why you are keen to avoid JMS? Our apps are not jee at all and we're trying to keep dependencies to a minimum. I see that the javax.jms jms-api artifact is available in maven so if that's all I need I'll start looking at it. > > I was hoping to use proton Messenger. > > Do you have a list of requirements you're going to need, or features you plan > to make use of on the broker side? Our needs are going to be pretty simple (I hope). We are going to need to do request response messaging between multiple frontend and backend processes. The backends are not identical. The frontends will know which backend process it needs to talk to. Backends (and probably frontends) will rarely be added or removed. I like the proton Messengers ability to run brokerless because our default installs will only have one frontend and one backend process. I was hoping to have the option of not running a broker at all in this case but that's not a requirement. We're still in the early stages of looking at this so any advice is welcomed. I'm happy to provide all the info I can. > > Would the classes in > > org.apache.qpid.amqp_1_0.client be more suitable for working with the > > java broker? Any other options? > > I'm honestly not sure what the plans are for the API of > org.apache.qpid.amqp_1_0.client, Rob can you shed any light on that? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
