On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 20:10 +0100, Gordon Sim wrote: > ... > I think the 'amqp' scheme should really be specified by the OASIS AMQP > member section.
I entirely agree with this, but in the meantime it will help qpid a lot to use the same connection url means. > ... > We may feel we have to live with our current abuses a little longer. We > may want to make our client libraries more uniform in their abuse. I think this is my position although I'm not clear that there is actually any abuse going on - but that is entirely subjective. > > Since it essentially just documents current practice, your proposal does > not really 'expand' the abuse (except in one small way, amqpr, on which > more later). However we should be clear that it is using 'amqp' as an > identifier for an entirely non-standard scheme. > > A little history... > ... This is very informative, but I was hoping to receive comments on the specific proposal. Perhaps a counter proposal even. I'm not clear if you are saying: 1) Leave things as they are, there's not a real problem here. 2) Wait until the OASIS AMQP group specifies something. 3) This proposal is rubbish, do .... 4) This proposal needs modifying in this way ... because... 5) Something else I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'd just like to progress this discussion towards some conclusion. > [1] Note also that it in (ii) should really be: > > [user [":" password] "@"] > > rather than > > [user ["/" password] "@"] > > to match http usage. I think that may have been my fault! My proposal didn't seek to match http really, rather unify what was there. Because of the clear lack of syntactic ambiguity I actually prefer using "/" as a separator. Although there may be no technical syntactic ambiguity with ":" in this place (as it must be followed by "@" to mean following password) I think you will need to backtrack to reinterpret a ":" already seen if you then see a "@". In the same way I'd suggest that if we include the transport protocol in the address part then we use a different separator than ":" as I like the convenience of leaving parts out. "%" is unused so far - mayber we can invent a use for all the standard graphical characters :) So I'm implying something like "amqp://user/password@ssl%host:port" which does actually look really horrible. If we use a ":" for this separator then we'd have to require it to always be there or otherwise the parser couldn't distinguish between an unknown transport and the hostname. Andrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
