On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 21:12 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 25/02/16 20:41, Ted Ross wrote:
> > I could live with this. The only problem is that "type" is
> > reserved by
> > the AMQP management spec to describe the entity-type. We would
> > need to
> > qualify it in some way (this problem exists in my proposal as
> > well).
>
> That is a shame. Is 'class' reserved? It could be an alternative to
> type
> that is still fairly familiar as a term ('category' might be
> another).
>
> > I think 'treatment' is pretty descriptive in that it describes how
> > the
> > router treats the links and deliveries it gets from the endpoints.
>
> It is descriptive, I agree. It just feels a little peculiar to me
> for
> probably the most visible/important of the fields. Not a huge issue
> (and
> I may get over it!).
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
I'm not crazy about 'treatment' but please not "type" or "class". They
are horribly over-used and are reserved words in many contexts, the
AMQP management spec is just one. E.g. a "type" attribute in python
isn't a great idea, a C++ or ruby client library couldn't use "class"
without trickery etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
