On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Dejan Bosanac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> How about you also put those ideas somewhere on the wiki at: >> http://stomp.codehaus.org/ >> > Done. Here's a page for this kind of material > > http://stomp.codehaus.org/Stomp+v1.1+Ideas > >> Some of the things I see missing in STOMP are: >> - Optional Keep Alive protocol. Right now we have to depend on the OS >> to detect socket failure to time out a dead client. Would be nice if >> the client could optionally agree to send a Keep Alive commands when >> the connection is idle. That way the sever can detect dead clients >> quicker. >> > I'd definitely keep this optional, since most Stomp clients implement > just basic blocked reading of the socket (waiting for the next frame). > >> - Perhaps standardize a 'host' header in the CONNECT frame to specify >> the host name that the client is connecting to. This would allow >> implementing virtual hosting where multiple DNS host entries point at >> the same STOMP server. >> > This would rock. I wonder how we could support virtual hosting in > ActiveMQ ... Should it be done, by allocating a different path hierarchy > for each host, so for example /queue/A on host1 would physically be > queue://host1/A, etc? >
Could be. Ideally we would have a separate broker per virtual host, that way you get more isolation. But even if we don't implement it initially, I think it's important we reserve that header. > > Cheers > > -- > Dejan Bosanac > > > http://www.ttmsolutions.com - get a free ActiveMQ user guide > > ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ > Scripting in Java - http://www.scriptinginjava.net > > -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com Open Source SOA http://open.iona.com
