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: Qpid URL Formats [ was Re: A question for the ActiveMQ chaps on the list...]
Date Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:08:18 GMT
If AMQP should be thee answer to users; they shouldn't have to think "in VM
or TCP".  Much like HTTP, the only option is encrypted or not.

As I said, I accept it can be useful for testing, but I really don't want to
water down the message of "one standard".

The same goes for transport bindings, as raised on the protocol discussion
list.  We should architect and prove it can be done (say to bind to SCTP),
but lets not confuse prospective users.

We're selling simplicity -- if thats possible!

On 27/09/06, Robert Greig <robert.j.greig@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/09/06, John O'Hara <john.r.ohara@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For testing I understand.
> > But what are we testing at that point?
> It is extremely useful to be able to test without the latency
> introduced by the network. We have found a number of timing-related
> bugs this way. It is also useful to know that the higher layers in the
> broker and client are not intimately bound to TCP/IP.
> > You should be able to run one test harness against both the C++ and Java
> > servers... that would be real leverage; and that would use IP.
> Of course and nobody is suggesting that we should not be able to do this.
> > I think popping out the notion of a VM transport sends a bad message to
> > prospective users.
> I don't follow. What bad message?
> RG

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