+1 On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Dexter Tad-y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To add to the discussion, how about standardizing AMQ-1874 as part of the > official Stomp specs. The patch is thankfully part of 5.2.0 now but of course > this is ActiveMQ specific. It would be great if it becomes part of Stomp v1.1 > and other Stomp brokers could follow suit. > > > --- On Wed, 9/24/08, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: Stomp v1.1 Thoughts >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 9:25 PM >> 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 > > > >
-- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com Open Source SOA http://open.iona.com
