On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 15:25 +0100, Martin Ritchie wrote: > > I'm not so sure that building such defaults into our client code / > broker is that wise as somewhere someone will not realise and access > will be leaked. > > You continue to miss out the client ID which is required to identify > the connected clients for such things as durable subscriptions. > > Is this url really too difficult for your users to understand? > > amqp://guest:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/virtualhost?brokerlist='localhost' > > I've helped a number of novice JMS people to write apps none have > commented on the JNDI configuration. > > Did the documentation page not help at all? > > http://cwiki.apache.org/qpid/how-to-use-jndi.html
Hum, I am actually referring to one user that tried to write a simple sample application without any external help. He had the feeling that it was much more complex to write a simple java sample than a C++ or Python one. Regarding the clientID, I am not missing it as we can set a default one when the simple URL is used. An advance user would use the current URL scheme and if we need to set the clientID with the simple URL then the JMSSession setClientID method can always be used. > > Great, it should be simple enough to provide such a tool by using the > > new JAVA Qpid APi. > > As much as I love writing little tools I do think though we have a > rather large work load implementing the core functionality for 0_10. > But every little helps. :) When I am saying simple tool I mean a class not a GUI staff so it should be simple enough to write one. > I think the 0_10 client should utilise a System property to cause the > client framework to declare or not declare connections. We don't want > to force our users to use JNDI. I appreciate that you don't want to force users to use JNDI. I am wondering how destinations are declared in such a case? (I am referring to the current 0.8 client) Arnaud
