Cross posting to the stomp mailing list too since someone there might have some input on this.
I like the idea about supporting a command-id header. I might prefer the correlation header to be called response-id instead of correlation-id. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nathan Mittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Jun 12, 2006 6:13 AM Subject: STOMP and connect/connected handshake To: [email protected] For the new activemq-cpp library, we need to extend the STOMP connect/connected handshake so that we get back a correlation-id for our response correlator. To do this, we need to send something in the connect request that contains a client-defined command-id. My first thought was to just reuse the message-id header, but that is typically reserved for cases when a client is expecting to acknowledge a message. So rather than risk breaking that paradigm, I created a new header "command-id" that is just used on the connect message. When the broker receives a connect request with a command-id header, it creates a connected response with a correlation-id set to the command-id of the original request. This way the client can treat the handshake as a true request/response. Does anyone see any problems with adding this to the broker? Regards, Nate -- Regards, Hiram
