On 09/05/16 08:55, Jakub Scholz wrote:
If I want to use link routing the direction "in" means the client is
sending messages and the direction "out" means client is receiving
messages. However when using the autoLinks, the "in" direction means the
client is receiving and the "out" direction means the client is sending. I
guess this might have some logic from other pespective, but for me it was a
bit confusing.
This has confused me more than once also! The in/out always describes
the direction of message flow from the perspective of the router.
However, link-routes and auto-links use a different link as the
reference point when determining that direction.
For link-routes it is the direction of message flow over the link
established by the client. i.e. link a below is 'in', link c is 'out'.
a ________ b ________
P ---> | router | ---> | broker |
| | | |
C <--- |________| <--- |________|
c d
For an autolink, it is the direction of message flow over that router
established link. So if the above diagram was a waypoint address with
autolinks, the direction of link b is 'out' and for d it is 'in'. This
does mean though that the ingress-phase uses the 'out' autolink and the
egress-phase uses the 'in' autolink (which seems confusing when put in
those terms).
So, while I see that the current scheme is consistent and logical, I
would also agree it is a little confusing.
E.g. If you want an autolink to a waypoint for the ingress phase, but a
link route to that waypoint for egress (e.g. for a durable
subscription), then the direction of each would be 'out' where I at
least intuitively expected them to be opposites (one 'out', one 'in' as
they would be if they were both auto-links or both link-routes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
