Regarding "treatment", the following may be a sign I've had my head in the
AMQP spec too much recently.

Nonetheless: "distribution" reads naturally in place of "treatment" for me
in your latest examples.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Ted Ross <[email protected]> wrote:

> No misinterpretation.  Those should both be plural.
>
> -Ted
>
>
> On 02/25/2016 04:58 PM, Justin Ross wrote:
>
>> Oh, one more question.  Connector and container say they are lists.
>> Should
>> the field names be plural?  I may be misinterpreting the notation there.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Justin Ross <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> What's the significance of link*Balanced*?  Are other kinds of link
>>> treatment anticipated?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25/02/16 21:44, Ted Ross wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here's my earlier cut with updates based on some of Alan's and Gordon's
>>>>> suggestions:  Note that I've kept "treatment" in place but would
>>>>> happily
>>>>> replace it with something better.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For direct messaging between producers and consumers:
>>>>>
>>>>> Direct multicast delivery (one copy to every subscriber to the
>>>>> address):
>>>>>
>>>>>       route {
>>>>>           address: service.mcast
>>>>>           path: direct
>>>>>           treatment: multicast
>>>>>       }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Direct delivery to only the closest (lowest cost) subscriber:
>>>>>
>>>>>       route {
>>>>>           address: service.regional
>>>>>           path: direct
>>>>>           treatment: closest
>>>>>       }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Direct delivery to one subscriber favoring subscribers that settle
>>>>> deliveries more quickly.
>>>>>
>>>>>       route {
>>>>>           address: service
>>>>>           path: direct
>>>>>           treatment: balanced
>>>>>       }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we can default 'path' to being 'direct' (which I think makes sense)
>>>> then it could be optional in all of the above, which makes them even
>>>> simpler. In other words you only really need to think about 'path' if
>>>> you
>>>> want some more advanced behaviour.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> =====================================================================
>>>>> Syntax:
>>>>>
>>>>> route: {
>>>>>       path: direct | source | sink | waypoint
>>>>>       address: (address or prefix)
>>>>>       treatment: multicast | closest | balanced | linkBalanced
>>>>>       connector: (list: label of a connection to/from a remote
>>>>> container)
>>>>>       container: (list: ID of a connected remote container)
>>>>>       routeAddress: (address to use in route table lookup, if
>>>>> different)
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Looks good!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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]
>
>

Reply via email to