Sorry for being a little late responding to this thread...
Stepping back for a second I think it's probably worth laying out how we
think this should work, and if we can come to agreement about that then we
can aim to have a complete solution in place for our next release (not this
one).
My view
Seems like a good approach to me.
Robbie
On 20 October 2011 11:05, Rob Godfrey rob.j.godf...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for being a little late responding to this thread...
Stepping back for a second I think it's probably worth laying out how we
think this should work, and if we can come to
I completely agree with the suggested approach as it will completely
remove the need to have a code which depends from the destination URL
syntax.
Kind Regards,
Alex
On 20 October 2011 11:05, Rob Godfrey rob.j.godf...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for being a little late responding to this thread...
On 10/17/2011 05:39 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
Whether an exchange exists with that name should be irrelevant if
queues are the default. It also certainly isnt what the documentation
says:
The node-type is one of:
topic: in the AMQP 0-10 mapping, a topic node defaults to the
topic
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Rob Godfrey rob.j.godf...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for being a little late responding to this thread...
Stepping back for a second I think it's probably worth laying out how we
think this should work, and if we can come to agreement about that then we
can aim to
On 20 October 2011 16:36, Rajith Attapattu rajit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Rob Godfrey rob.j.godf...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for being a little late responding to this thread...
Stepping back for a second I think it's probably worth laying out how we
think this
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Robbie Gemmell
robbie.gemm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 October 2011 16:36, Rajith Attapattu rajit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Rob Godfrey rob.j.godf...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for being a little late responding to this thread...
Stepping
Why do we resolve Address node types? This question arose during
review of proposed updates to the Address syntax implementation for
the Java client, but ultimately looks to be a wider question for all
the clients and so I am asking it here outwith that review.
The documentation for the Address
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Robbie Gemmell
robbie.gemm...@gmail.com wrote:
Why do we resolve Address node types? This question arose during
review of proposed updates to the Address syntax implementation for
the Java client, but ultimately looks to be a wider question for all
the clients
On 17 October 2011 16:01, Rajith Attapattu rajit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Robbie Gemmell
robbie.gemm...@gmail.com wrote:
Why do we resolve Address node types? This question arose during
review of proposed updates to the Address syntax implementation for
the Java
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Robbie Gemmell
robbie.gemm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 October 2011 16:01, Rajith Attapattu rajit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Robbie Gemmell
robbie.gemm...@gmail.com wrote:
Why do we resolve Address node types? This question arose during
On 17 October 2011 20:58, Rajith Attapattu rajit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Robbie Gemmell
robbie.gemm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 October 2011 16:01, Rajith Attapattu rajit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Robbie Gemmell
robbie.gemm...@gmail.com
12 matches
Mail list logo
