[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2539?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12866147#action_12866147
]
Rajith Attapattu commented on QPID-2539:
----------------------------------------
ADK: I agree. The 'less strict' phrasing was not the best choice of words. The
file format I'm proposing still has no ambiguity, and can be defined with a
strict EBNF grammar (if so desired ;) and is simply an extension of the C++
format, i.e. any valid C++ broker ACL file is also a valid Java broker ACL
file. The opposite is not true, since at the moment there are features
(virtualhosts) that are not available in the C++ broker. Actually, this can be
dealt with the same way the java broker deals with currently un-implemented
features (routes, links) by ignoring those ACL stanzas.
RA: I think we should really stop thinking in terms of a java format or c++
format. We need to focus on agreeing on a common format.
Once we decide and agree on a format both brokers **should** be able to
parse the file format.
However each broker could ignore items that it doesn't support.
Also when we document, we need to ensure that we position this as the
"Qpid ACL format".
Then we can go onto mention the exceptions where each broker may ignore
certain entries.
> Update ACL file syntax to be clearer and add extra operations
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: QPID-2539
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2539
> Project: Qpid
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Java Broker
> Reporter: Andrew Kennedy
> Fix For: 0.7
>
>
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
