Hi Frase, Before you raise an issue you have to have an account. Once you log in then in the Issues pulldown (upper left) will have a create choice.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Signup!default.jspa Go for it! -Chuck ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fraser Adams" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:35:26 PM > Subject: Re: Is it possible to set authentication to only authenticate > consumers? > > Hi Gordon, > I've been meaning to ask this for some time, but at the risk of > exposing > my ignorance how do I go about raising a Jira? > > I've looked at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/qpid but I can't > see how to actually raise an issue from these pages. It's not obvious > to > me I'm afraid. > > Re "Personally, I'm less keen on that," with respect to qpid-route, > so > what's your issue with it? As far as I can see it's a perfectly > reasonable thing to do. > > In my scenario I want to be able to send messages to a fanout > exchange, > have a processing consumer connect to one output queue and have a > headers exchange linked to another queue off the fanout. After > processing I want the processing consumer send its results to the > headers exchange (so the headers exchange, and thus subscribers bound > to > it get both the unprocessed and processed data). Clearly I could > stand > up two broker instances and federate between them, however as far as > I > can see it's more efficient to link these things together on a single > broker instance. > > It actually works if I comment out the two lines of code in > qpid-route > and I guess if I explicitly invoked QMF methods on the broker via the > QMF API or protocol I could do it too. > > It's not at all clear to me why you're not keen on this, surely it's > logically no different to federating between exchanges on different > brokers except it's more efficient. > > Frase > > > Gordon Sim wrote: > > On 10/09/2011 04:33 PM, Fraser Adams wrote: > >> are there any plans to update qpid-config on an official release > >> with > >> your patch that displays the binding.arguments if they exist and > >> so make > >> it useful for headers exchange bindings. > > > > Raise a JIRA and I'll get a review going of the (trivial) patch and > > all going well we can have it in the next release. > > > >> Similarly > >> qpid-route had a test in place (at the start of the addLink() > >> method) to > >> prevent one linking a broker to itself, things work fine if I > >> comment > >> out the test. I can't see a good reason for the test - or log a > >> warning > >> rather than throw an exception. > > > > Personally, I'm less keen on that, but again if you raise a JIRA > > then > > we have a way to track it. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
