Hopefully any console will clearly show these queues as "temporary" and "exclusive", so the "tmp_" part was always quite redundant. The UUID at the end will guarantee uniqueness. I think adding "JMStopic" is kind of redundant also - it doesn't give an operator any more insight into the queue's purpose. My feeling is that the above naming scheme is valid for all temporary queues that are involved in only one binding.
Currently I don;t have any use cases for temp queues involved in multiple bindings. -- Rob On 20/03/2008, Martin Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >
