On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 16:29 +0200, Arnaud Simon wrote: > The proposed scheme was effectively assuming that we should be able to > specify client properties per broker. If we all agree that this is > useless to do that then we should stay with the amqp format. If we think > that it could be useful to specify some properties on a per broker basis > then my proposal makes kind of sense. > We could also use a combination of both approaches if we want to allow > setting properties globally and locally. > This being said I thought that we were not allowed to use the name amqp > for our URL. This is why I changed it to qpid. Robert can you clarify > that point please?
The combination sounds like a good choice. The "after" option complies with 0-10 and is convenient for clusters where user ids etc. are consistent across the cluster which is likely to be a common case. However I think we may well find situations where you want to specify some different connection properties per broker, so it seems like a healthy extension to the 0-10 format that we can push into 0-11. I'd also be inclined to accept either amqp: or qpid: in parsing. amqp: because we can parse standard 0-10 URLs, so we shouldn't refuse to do so. qpid: for those who wish to highlight that they are using a qpid-specific feature, e.g. because they use the [EMAIL PROTECTED] format. We could have 2 parsers and not allow qpid extensions in an amqp: URL but I don't think that is a pressing feature, we can add it if/when there's a need. Cheers, Alan.
