Robert Greig wrote:
The interop case that I was thinking about was the replyto field currently
in the basic content class.
If clients don't have a common understand of how that field is encoded then
I don't think that field is very useful?
Yes, good point. The reply to field is underspecified and the 'binding
url' as defined in the wiki link could be used for that.
In general in AMQP the only information used in sending would be the
exchange name and the routing key. Perhaps two fields in the headers
'reply exchange' and 'reply routing key' would be better long term
approach than trying to encode the information in a single string.
Certainly I don't think the queue name (or any of its properties) should
be included.
