qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (DISPATCH-89) Model the legacy topic exchange behavior of qpidd
Date Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:19:00 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-89?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16337744#comment-16337744
] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on DISPATCH-89:
----------------------------------------

Github user kgiusti commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/qpid-dispatch/pull/244#discussion_r163577138
  
    --- Diff: python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json ---
    @@ -1126,6 +1126,106 @@
                 }
             },
     
    +        "router.config.exchange": {
    +            "description":"[EXPERIMENTAL] Defines a topic exchange.",
    +            "extends": "configurationEntity",
    +            "operations": ["CREATE", "DELETE"],
    +            "attributes": {
    +                "address": {
    --- End diff --
    
    I don't think there really is any consistency - we've had 'router.config.address' and
'router.address' types from the beginning, not 'router.config.addr' etc.  The compound attribute
names do use "Addr" as part of the name (while I don't like that either), but when there's
a single address attribute it's either "addr" (router.config.autolink) or "address" (router.node).
 There are only two cases so consistency hasn't been established.
    
    I just don't like the "addr" contraction in the user-facing API (and this includes <prefix>Addr
names).  We use "addr" all over the _code_ as a shortcut for "address", and I think using
"addr" for autolink just seemed natural to us programmers.  But for a non-programmer does
dropping the "ess" help in any way?
    
    I feel like I'm bikeshedding this.   Are there any other folks that feel strongly either
way?  I'll do whatever the consensus is.


> Model the legacy topic exchange behavior of qpidd
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DISPATCH-89
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-89
>             Project: Qpid Dispatch
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Routing Engine
>    Affects Versions: 0.2
>            Reporter: Ken Giusti
>            Assignee: Ken Giusti
>            Priority: Major
>
> With Qpidd, a user can define a binding from an Exchange to a target queue.  The binding
uses a key that is compared to a message's subject field.  If the key matches, the message
is routed to the target queue for that binding.
> It should be possible to emulate this behavior using the dispatch router.
> Example:
> User defines a mappings from a target address (the 'exchange') to a different target
address(es) (the 'queue').  These mappings (the 'bindings') are driven by a pattern match
against the inbound message's subject field.
> Messages arriving at the router from any link whose target address has bindings defined
are not immediately routed.  Prior to routing, the message's subject field is extracted and
compared against each binding defined for the target.  A list of new target addresses is created
containing the target address from each binding that satisfied the pattern match.  The message
is then routed to each new target address.
> The pattern syntax should be the same 'dotted string' notation from qpidd, including
'*' and "#' wildcarding.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

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


Mime
View raw message