qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John O'Hara" <john.r.oh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: A question for the ActiveMQ chaps on the list...
Date Fri, 22 Sep 2006 19:49:15 GMT
So basically we could use a URI which defines the exchanges, bindings and
queues.
A bit nasty, but there is something attractive about it in the same way ODBC
connection strings undeniably work :-)

John

On 22/09/06, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/22/06, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:
> > James Strachan wrote:
> > > On 9/22/06, John O'Hara <john.r.ohara@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> When James spent some time with us back on the early early days of
> the
> > >> AMQP I got the impression that he held the view that you could plug
> the
> > >> command verbs onto ActiveMQ and it would just work.
> > >
> > > Assuming there is indeed a well defined mapping of AMQP commands to
> > > JMS/MQSeries semantics then yes it should.
> >
> > I think a well defined mapping of JMS semantics onto AMQP commands is
> > possible and desirable. I'm not as sure that there is a mapping of AMQP
> > commands onto JMS semantics.
> >
> > For example, in AMQP there is a bind command for attaching a queue to an
> > exchange. What concept in JMS would this command be mapped onto?
> >
>
> All the binding information can be contained in the destination name.
>
> > I'm certainly not saying that a given JMS broker could not be made to
> > support AMQP. Individual implementations may well have the necessary
> > concepts in which to express AMQP semantics, but as far as I can JMS as
> > a specification does not so I'm not clear how a generic mapping would be
> > specified.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message