Hi, It looks to me that the solution you are describing is very similar to the current common layer (I am not speaking about the API described @ http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/Message+API+Design). I would help (me at least) if you can highlight the main differences between the two approaches. What would change, What are the advantages of using your approach when compare with talking directly to the current common layer?
Thanks Arnaud On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 15:46 +0100, Rupert Smith wrote: > Here is a picture that might help explain my idea more clearly. > > 'B' is the broker interface, callable by the client, 'C' is the > methods the client handles, callable by the broker. Comm layer > implements both, turning method calls into frames, frames into method > calls. An instance of the comm layer created through its factory, will > be specific to client or broker usage scenario. > > The broker routing layer also implements the protocol factory. As it > is a broker it only supplies the broker interface, if you try and gets > its client interface, it will throw an exception, which is why I put a > line through the 'C'. > > As you can see, the client that is talking to the comm layer, could > just as easily be talking to an in-vm broker. > >
