[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7606?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16183835#comment-16183835
]
Keith Wall commented on QPID-7606:
----------------------------------
In the long term, a Queue's or Exchange's alternateBinding or a Binding's
destination could be either a global address (domain unknown) or a local
destination (queue or exchange - domain known). This influenced us to use a
https://dojotoolkit.org/reference-guide/1.10/dijit/form/ComboBox.html which
allows the user to provide input outside of the suggested values. From what I
can see, a ComboBox does not have an analogue for {{<optgroup/>}} and seems to
offer no way to disable a suggestion within the list. I don't think we want
a dependency on another widget library and I am not sure it is sufficiently
impactful to justify the time that would be spent coding a something ourselves.
> Generalise Queue|Exchange#alternateExchange as alternateBinding
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: QPID-7606
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-7606
> Project: Qpid
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Java Broker
> Reporter: Keith Wall
> Assignee: Alex Rudyy
> Fix For: qpid-java-broker-7.0.0
>
> Attachments: alternate-binding.tar.gz
>
>
> Queues and exchanges should have something akin to an "alternate binding"
> rather than an alternate exchange. From this we can simplify the DLQ
> implementation to remove the need for DLEs (or at worst have a single DLE).
> Alternate Bindings could be modelled as {{\{destination, arguments\}}}. A
> supported argument might be {{replacementRoutingKey}} which if set could
> direct the routing through the alternate(s) (This is separate - see
> QPID-7771).
> This work includes:
> * changes to the model object themselves and the routing algorithms
> * update the configuration upgrades to remap Exchange#alternativeExchange and
> Queue#alternativeExchange into the new model.
> * the facility for automatic creation of a DLQ should be retained but it can
> be simplified to not create an DLE exchange.
> * On upgrade, existing users' DLQ/DLEs must be retained as is, that is, there
> is no requirement to eliminate existing DLEs. This is because we have no way
> to predict if the users made additional changes to these objects.
> * update UI
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
