On 6 May 2015 at 17:02, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/06/2015 04:34 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> >> We progressed an idea around an extended use the 'shared' capability. >> The main issue with using just the capability and link name is that >> links have to be unique (in a given direction) based on the >> conainer-id-1 + link-name + container-id-2 triplet, so for a >> particular 'broker container' that would limit you to having a single >> subscriber per set of connections using the same container id, which >> partly defeats the intent. As a result, we also ended up looking at >> ways to encode the subscription name into the address. > > > Or use a link property. That was my original intention, but due to > PROTON-335 I couldn't do so.
Yep that was another option, I just didnt mention it as discussion mostly steered down the other path in the end, and I felt the email was more than long enough ;) >I just relaxed the requirement of a unique name > in the shared case. > <Insert compliance debate here > :) >> That idea also >> came up independently because it was felt it would be better >> conceptually to have different address strings for different shared >> subscriptions on the same topic, given they would essentially be >> different [psudeo-] nodes. > > > Personally I don't like cramming too much stuff into the address string, > especially when there are numerous other explicit fields intended to convey > additional information. > > A 'shared-subscription' link property whose value was the name of the > subscription to use, would be simple and (in my view) clear, and wouldn't > need to fit in with any other grand plans for address syntax. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
