Hi Rob,

Absolutely correct on all points.  There would certainly be work required on 
the Java broker side - for which I'd have to address before providing a more 
complete patch.

I should've been clearer in post - this patch is really preliminary.  More of a 
proof of concept/proposal at this stage.  Since it does result in a change to 
the user model, I thought it best to solicit wider input earlier in the process.

So, yes, no checking in at this time, but comments welcome!

thanks,

-K 

----- Original Message -----
> Given that this change affects the management schema and what is
> effectively the primary key for bridges/links, this will obviously
> affect
> the Java broker too.  (If checked in as is it would no doubt
> immediately
> break the java build).
> 
> It's not that I personally disagree with the design decisions, but
> any
> change like this should probably be discussed and agreed widely
> before work
> is embarked upon... or else the person working on it should make the
> changes across *both* codebases.
> 
> Cheers,
> Rob
> 
> On 19 January 2012 15:22, Kenneth Giusti <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/3546/
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Gordon Sim, michael goulish,
> > and Ted
> > Ross.
> >
> >
> > Summary
> > -------
> >
> > This patch modifies the way the broker's Link and Bridge objects
> > are
> > identified and managed.  Specifically:
> >
> > 1) both Bridge and Links are now identified by explict names
> > assigned by
> > management, rather than destination host/port info.
> >   - names beginning with the prefix "qpid." are reserved for qpidd
> > internal use.
> >   - for backward compatibility, if no name is assigned on creation,
> >   the
> > broker will generate a name based on UUID
> > 2) the corresponding QMF objects have been updated accordingly,
> > with the
> > additions of:
> >   - the QMF Link object has been updated to provide a reference to
> >   the
> > corresponding Connection
> >   - the QMF Link object has been modified to allow the
> > host/port/connectionRef to change on failover
> >   - the QMF Bridge object has been modified to allow the Channel
> > identifier to change (allowing Bridges to be reassigned to
> > different links
> > in the future)
> > 3) Links/Bridges may now be created/deleted via the QMF Broker's
> > generic
> > "create" and "delete" methods
> > 4) Some consolidation of the Link/Bridge creation APIs,
> > specifically:
> >   - Link/Bridges are created via calls to the LinkRegistry's
> >   "declare()"
> > methods
> >   - Link/Bridges are removed by calling their corresponding
> >   "destroy()"
> > methods
> >
> > More importantly, the above changes make it possible to create
> > multiple
> > Links between the same two brokers.  This can be done by creating
> > Links to
> > the same destinations with different names.  This is a change from
> > the
> > existing behavior, which uses the destination host/port as the
> > unique Link
> > identifier.
> >
> >
> > This addresses bug qpid-3767.
> >    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/qpid-3767
> >
> >
> > Diffs
> > -----
> >
> >  /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Bridge.h 1233125
> >  /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Bridge.cpp 1233125
> >  /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.cpp 1233125
> >  /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Connection.cpp 1233125
> >  /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Link.h 1233125
> >  /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Link.cpp 1233125
> >  /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/LinkRegistry.h 1233125
> >  /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/LinkRegistry.cpp 1233125
> >  /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/tests/federation.py 1233125
> >  /trunk/qpid/specs/management-schema.xml 1233125
> >
> > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3546/diff
> >
> >
> > Testing
> > -------
> >
> > This patch fails to pass some of the cluster tests - I'm
> > investigating
> > this now.  All non-cluster federation tests where passing (prior to
> > my
> > latest rebase).
> >
> > Work remains, but I wanted to get this patch out for discussion
> > before
> > going much farther.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Kenneth
> >
> >
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]

Reply via email to