On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/22/2012 03:08 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote: >> >> it's impossible to retain backwards compatibility while strictly >> adhering to the C++/python syntax. > > > I don't think that is true, but it depends on what exactly you mean by the > 'c++/python syntax'. If it is really just the pseudo-python used to describe > maps and can include lists and nested maps then to describe the existing > connection[1] url options you might have e.g. > > {user:x,password:y,clientid:z,virtualhost:a,failover:b,maxprefetch:c,brokerlist:[{url:'host1:port1',retries:2,connectdelay:10},{url:'host2:port2',retries:3,connectdelay:5}]}
Seems reasonable, all though I'm not too keen on it. Gordon, I was actually thinking about a common set of property names across all clients (rather than allow existing connection URL stuff to be used this way). If somebody wants to use an existing ConnectionURL as it is, then we can parse it an populate a data structure internally that makes more sense, rather than trying to convert it first to a string like this. If somebody wants to write it with the new syntax then they could use the same props we use for the other languages. > I'm not saying I recommend that, but it *is* possible and I would say it is > also cleaner than your alternative. > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/connection-url-format.html > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
