On 23 January 2014 22:25, Shearer, Davin <dshea...@novetta.com> wrote:
> Ah, OK, I thought they'd both use the same REST API as documented here > > http://qpid.apache.org/releases/qpid-0.24/java-broker/book/Java-Broker-Configuring-And-Managing-HTTP-Management.html > . > Alas no, as per the URL those are the docs for the Java broker HTTP management plugin. > To me the language that the broker is written in is an implementation > detail. The brokers came into existence separately and have evolved differently over time. While effort is often made (from Gordon and Rob in particular) to ensure they support similar features in similar ways where possible, they ultimately do differ significantly and probably most visibly so around configuration and management. > Would it not make sense to layer the same REST API over both the > C++ and Java brokers? Why should it be different? > Frasers QMF2 tools can work against either to an extent (it was originally developed against the C++ broker and then a QMF2 plugin added to allow operation against the Java broker), but the brokers are different and so some stuff just is different. As one small example: one of your URLs had a virtualhost name in it, but the C++ broker doesnt use named/multiple virtualhosts and thus that part just doesnt map particularly nicely between the two. I guess the main reason the two REST APis in question are different though is because the Java brokers plugin was developed to be an HTTP interface more directly exposing its configuration model (because almost everything is now configurable via it), whereas the QMF REST API was developed as a way of offering up the QMF functionality used by the C++ broker for its management. The two things were basically developed by different people at different times for somewhat different purposes. Robbie
