qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Conway <acon...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: [dispatch] Some updated thoughts on improved link-route and waypoint configuration
Date Fri, 04 Mar 2016 20:09:05 GMT
On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 21:12 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 25/02/16 20:41, Ted Ross wrote:
> > I could live with this.  The only problem is that "type" is
> > reserved by
> > the AMQP management spec to describe the entity-type.  We would
> > need to
> > qualify it in some way (this problem exists in my proposal as
> > well).
> 
> That is a shame. Is 'class' reserved? It could be an alternative to
> type 
> that is still fairly familiar as a term ('category' might be
> another).
> 
> > I think 'treatment' is pretty descriptive in that it describes how
> > the
> > router treats the links and deliveries it gets from the endpoints.
> 
> It is descriptive, I agree. It just feels a little peculiar to me
> for 
> probably the most visible/important of the fields. Not a huge issue
> (and 
> I may get over it!).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
> 

I'm not crazy about 'treatment' but please not "type" or "class". They
are horribly over-used and are reserved words in many contexts, the
AMQP management spec is just one. E.g. a "type" attribute in python
isn't a great idea, a C++ or ruby client library couldn't use "class"
without trickery etc.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message