On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Ken Giusti wrote:
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Rafael Schloming"
> > To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 10:21:04 AM
> > Subject: Re: Observations on the performance of
- Original Message -
> From: "Rafael Schloming"
> To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 10:21:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Observations on the performance of the proton event model
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Ken Giusti wrote:
&g
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Ken Giusti wrote:
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Rafael Schloming"
> > To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 5:41:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Observations on the performance of
- Original Message -
> From: "Rafael Schloming"
> To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 5:41:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Observations on the performance of the proton event model
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Ken Giusti wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Andrew Stitcher
wrote:
> An off the cuff thought - worth what you paid for it -
>
> On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 11:23 -0500, Ken Giusti wrote:
> > ...
> > Furthermore, I think the event API would benefit from a way to 'opt-in'
> to specific events. For example, for qpi
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Ken Giusti wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been working on a simple patch to qpidd that ports the AMQP 1.0
> module to the new event interface provided by proton 0.8. See
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-6255 for the patch.
>
> With the above patch, I've notic
An off the cuff thought - worth what you paid for it -
On Wed, 2014-12-10 at 11:23 -0500, Ken Giusti wrote:
> ...
> Furthermore, I think the event API would benefit from a way to 'opt-in' to
> specific events. For example, for qpidd we would not want to receive
> PN_TRANSPORT nor PN_LINK_LOCAL_
