qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Review Request: Concurrently executing connections are allowed to use the same client ID
Date Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:56:55 GMT
On 07/07/2011 06:36 PM, Robert Godfrey wrote:
> Is there a way we could do this by using temporary queues and binding
> with the client name to an exchange ... I thought that Exchange.Bound
> would tell you if there is or isn't any queue already bound with a given
> binding key... though the definition isn't particularly clear as you
> seem always to have to give a queue name.  The temp queue would
> obviously by destroyed when the connection dies.  not sure if this is
> more or less ugly than the given approach.

My view was that if it shared a session with the application on which to 
declare this queue, that would be a little more ugly than this.

If it used a separate session it would suffer from the same problem 
Robbie described and thus would probably be at least as ugly.

It would be a fraction more complicated which is why it didn't seem 
worth pursuing to me. However that was based on the assumption that 
session names would be enforced as exclusive wherever queue names were. 
If using an exclusive queue would make it work on the java broker as 
well then that would swing my opinion.

> Realistically I imagine that there are unlikely to be any more AMQP 0-10
> brokers, with AMQP 1.0 soon to be released... and as Robbie says, I'm
> pretty sure the current approach will only work with 50% of them (i.e.
> the C++ broker) :-)

Yes, however I'm not sure that a non-standard solution is necessarily 
any less ugly and it would require explicit coding.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message