On 07/07/2011 06:36 PM, Robert Godfrey wrote:
Is there a way we could do this by using temporary queues and binding with the client name to an exchange ... I thought that Exchange.Bound would tell you if there is or isn't any queue already bound with a given binding key... though the definition isn't particularly clear as you seem always to have to give a queue name. The temp queue would obviously by destroyed when the connection dies. not sure if this is more or less ugly than the given approach.
My view was that if it shared a session with the application on which to declare this queue, that would be a little more ugly than this.
If it used a separate session it would suffer from the same problem Robbie described and thus would probably be at least as ugly.
It would be a fraction more complicated which is why it didn't seem worth pursuing to me. However that was based on the assumption that session names would be enforced as exclusive wherever queue names were. If using an exclusive queue would make it work on the java broker as well then that would swing my opinion.
Realistically I imagine that there are unlikely to be any more AMQP 0-10 brokers, with AMQP 1.0 soon to be released... and as Robbie says, I'm pretty sure the current approach will only work with 50% of them (i.e. the C++ broker) :-)
Yes, however I'm not sure that a non-standard solution is necessarily any less ugly and it would require explicit coding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
