On 26/07/07, Jonathan Robie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree with Rajith and Gordon here - the current URLs do not seem to follow common conventions, and are hard to remember because of that.
I think it is worth pointing out that with 0-8 the set of hosts to use for failover is configured by the client. Hence the brokerlist in the URL.
I don't think that Qpid has the right to register an amqp name scheme for URLs, we have the right to use a qpid name scheme. I'm not sure which group should create the URL format. (OK, I'm a standards geek, it's a curse I live with ;->)
Like many things we do, we intended to get it included in the standard.
I suggest we use the conventions discussed in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986. As I interpret it, AMQP can use any of the following forms: 1. amqp://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/virtualhost?param=value,param=value 2. amqp://localhost/virtualhost?user=jrobie,param=value 3. amqp:localhost?virtualhost=hostname,user=jrobie Qpid would need to use a qpid name scheme:
Why? http is a protocol and we have http://foo.com/ not httpd://foo.com
1. qpid://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/virtualhost?param=value,param=value 2. qpid://localhost/virtualhost?user=jrobie,param=value 3. qpid:localhost?virtualhost=hostname,user=jrobie
Can you provide an example that includes the brokerlist for failover and the client id? I agree that our "URL" is not entirely like other URLs but I am not convinced that any alternative that actually includes all the things that are required is any clearer. Maybe we should create something more like a corbaloc address? RG
