On 21/09/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/21/06, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think yes - it makes a whole lot more sense to send a message to an
> exchange than to send it to a destination.
From an API perspective, what is the difference? Its not like a
Destination in JMS/NMS has much semantics to it - its just a URI like
in REST.
From the point of view of publishing a JMS Destination maps to a pair
in AMQP: the exchange + the routing key.
From the point of view of consuming a JMS Destination maps to the
queue name in AMQP (plus perhaps a few flags like no-local). Although
that queue need to be bound to an exchange in the correct way.
In an AMQP mapping a JMS Destination has 3 "duties". It provides
enough information to enable:
1. Construction and configuration of the queue
(exchange.declare, queue.declare, queue.bind)
2. Publishing (basic.publish)
3. Consuming (basic.consume)
Steve.
