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: AMQP 0-9 support
Date Tue, 23 Jan 2007 02:10:24 GMT
To be 0-9 compliant, you have to support the 0-8 framing by default.
We can't ship at all if we're not compliant..... eating own dog food and all
that!

Clients have to connect as version 99-0 to get the WIP framing.
If that in itself does not resolve the connection issue, then an errata to
enable that detection should be added to the spec.

Cheers
John

On 17/01/07, Kim van der Riet <kim.vdriet@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 13:11 +0000, Robert Godfrey wrote:
> > Are you saying we will not support those parts of 0-9 which are also in
> 0-8
> > (i.e. Basic, File and Stream)?
> >
> > As far as I understand it, those are still in the spec although marked
> as
> > likely to be replaced.  If we are claiming spec compliance should we not
> > still support these classes for the moment?  If spec compliance is not
> our
> > goal (i.e. we are really anticipating a later version of the spec where
> > these elements have been removed) we should be clear about that.  On
> other
> > threads we have been quite reluctant to get "ahead of the spec".
> >
> > - Rob
>
> IIRC, there are some difficulties in supporting both at the same time -
> issues that the protocol does not resolve. For example, framing: When a
> ProtocolInitiation is received by the broker, how does it know whether
> to use the new request/response framing or old MethodBody frame to send
> the Connection.Start method?
>
> However, your question on how we label an implementation that supports
> only 0-9 WIP is valid. It cannot be strictly 0-9 compliant, so perhaps
> we should call it 0-9-WIP compliant instead.
>
> Kim
>
>

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