Added to wiki wishlist. Thanks
-- 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 Hiram Chirino wrote: > +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 >>> >> >> >> > > > >
