Agreed it is not really an URL as it is not universal. AMQ-RL seemed a bit of a mouth full so perhaps identifier is better. The prefix isn't redundant it just appears so in the provided examples. The prefix://host format is:
<class>://<name> The class is currently direct, topic or headers the name can be any value. The AMQP spec requires that the broker declares corresponding default exchanges: amq.direct, amq.topic, amq.headers; but any name is valid hence the prefix is used to identify the class of exchange. On 09/01/07, Tomas Restrepo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that case it might be better to refer to it as a "binding identifier" > or "binding name". It's not a URL at all, since it doesn't provide > information how to locate a binding on the network. Its not a URI either > since it can only be interpreted in the context of a broker, so it's not > a universal identifier. +1. I agree it's not really an URL, so calling that is misleading. That said, I have to wonder about the format. Why does it have a prefix at all? After all, it appears to me the prefix is carrying redundant information: topic://amq.topic?routingkey='stocks.#' direct://amq.direct/SimpleQueue Notice that the prefix and the "host" part say the same anyway. On the other hand, I might just be showing off my ignorance here :) Tomas Restrepo [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/
-- Martin Ritchie
