As Mr. Grieg says this we should remember that this is for temp queues of all sorts hence the generic format suggested. This doesn't really have any bearing on JMS. We currently have a similar naming and binding issue with the java direct exchange. The names start Temp but the binding is tmp.
On 20/03/2008, Robert Greig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 20/03/2008, Arnaud Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Rob naming schema looks very good. I would however prepend "JMStopic_" > > to it. As this scheme is used for simplifying the broker administration, > > prepending "JMStopic_" would increase the understandability of queue > > names. > > Sorry I don't quite follow this? > > The private queues are not a JMS-specific approach and neither are > they limited to topics - for example the headers exchange has the same > kind of topology. > > RG > -- Martin Ritchie
