I like having registered properties especially for common cases. 'client-pid' and 'client-name' would be my first vote. 'pid' and 'pname' second. 'pid' and 'process' third.
-C ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robbie Gemmell" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:47:30 AM > Subject: Re: AMQP 1.0 connection property names > > Sounds like a good idea to me. I have been meaning to do the same thing > with some other properties like 'version' and 'product'. > > My only comment around the actual names is that 'process' doesnt > immediately make me think 'name' and even seems a little like it could be > describing the same thing as 'pid' if you didnt know both properties > existed, which I have always thought about the older versions too. That > isn't to say I necessarily have a good alternative suggestion, the only > short one I could think of was 'pname' :) > > Robbie > > On 13 May 2014 16:20, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The qpid::messaging (c++), qpid.messaging (python) libraries send > > connection properties to identify the process by name and pid among other > > things. These are then used by the QMF support in qpidd to report the > > process details for the connections. > > > > This has proven to be an extremely useful feature and is supported also > > over AMQP 1.0. At present the property names used for both 0-10 and 1.0 are > > qpid.client_pid and qpid.client_process. > > > > However I would like to send this data in an application outside of > > qpid[1]. Having standard names for these two items over AMQP 1.0 would be > > great. This is not to force any implementation that doesn't support or > > recognise them to do so, merely to encourage anyone adding something > > similar to use the same property name for better interoperability. > > > > I'm open to any suggestions on the names to use, but I would like to > > submit a request to OASIS to have them added to http://www.amqp.org/ > > specification/1.0/connection-properties. My suggestion is simply to use > > 'pid' and 'process'. > > > > Anyone have an opinion on this? If not I'll go ahead and send a request to > > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/amqp-comment/ > > > > Apologies for the cross-posting, but I figured there may be interest on > > the ActiveMQ side as well. > > > > --Gordon. > > > > [1] Specifically a proposed 'driver' supporting AMQP 1.0 in OpenStack's > > messaging library: https://github.com/FlaPer87/oslo.messaging/tree/gordon > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
