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

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.


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

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