So basically we could use a URI which defines the exchanges, bindings and queues. A bit nasty, but there is something attractive about it in the same way ODBC connection strings undeniably work :-)
John On 22/09/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/22/06, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Strachan wrote: > > On 9/22/06, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> When James spent some time with us back on the early early days of the > >> AMQP I got the impression that he held the view that you could plug the > >> command verbs onto ActiveMQ and it would just work. > > > > Assuming there is indeed a well defined mapping of AMQP commands to > > JMS/MQSeries semantics then yes it should. > > I think a well defined mapping of JMS semantics onto AMQP commands is > possible and desirable. I'm not as sure that there is a mapping of AMQP > commands onto JMS semantics. > > For example, in AMQP there is a bind command for attaching a queue to an > exchange. What concept in JMS would this command be mapped onto? > All the binding information can be contained in the destination name. > I'm certainly not saying that a given JMS broker could not be made to > support AMQP. Individual implementations may well have the necessary > concepts in which to express AMQP semantics, but as far as I can JMS as > a specification does not so I'm not clear how a generic mapping would be > specified. > > -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
