activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mittler, Nathan" <nathan.mitt...@sensis.com>
Subject RE: [stomp-dev] RE: STOMP and connect/connected handshake
Date Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:47:17 GMT
Agreed.  So let's go with a new set of headers.

I propose the following:

request-id (goes in any STOMP client->broker request command ...
currently only CONNECT)

response-id (goes in any STOMP client<-broker response command ...
currently only CONNECTED)

I've changed "command-id" to "request-id" so that it's clearer that the
two headers are related.

How does this sound?

Nate

-----Original Message-----
From: James Strachan [mailto:james.strachan@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:28 AM
To: dev@stomp.codehaus.org
Subject: Re: [stomp-dev] RE: STOMP and connect/connected handshake

FWIW the correlation-id currently maps to JMSCorrelationID - but is
only used on JMS messages rather than on commands like CONNECT etc.

Though the JMSCorrelationID is often an out of band correlation;
rather than correlating a request stomp command to a stomp response;
so maybe another header name would avoid confusion?

On 6/12/06, Mittler, Nathan <nathan.mittler@sensis.com> wrote:
> There is already a correlation-id header defined in the AMQ
extensions:
> http://www.activemq.org/site/stomp.html - I was trying to reuse this
> header for the connect handshake.  I don't feel that strongly one way
or
> the other. The name "response-id" is fine - we'd just have to add
> another header to our list of extensions (we'd have to do that for the
> "command-id" header anyway).
>
> Nate
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: chirino@gmail.com [mailto:chirino@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Hiram
> Chirino
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:05 AM
> To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org; dev@stomp.codehaus.org
> Subject: Re: STOMP and connect/connected handshake
>
> Cross posting to the stomp mailing list too since someone there might
> have some input on this.
>
> I like the idea about supporting a command-id header.  I might prefer
> the correlation header to be called response-id instead of
> correlation-id.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nathan Mittler <nathan.mittler@gmail.com>
> Date: Jun 12, 2006 6:13 AM
> Subject: STOMP and connect/connected handshake
> To: activemq-dev@geronimo.apache.org
>
>
> For the new activemq-cpp library, we need to extend the STOMP
> connect/connected handshake so that we get back a correlation-id for
our
> response correlator.  To do this, we need to send something in the
> connect
> request that contains a client-defined command-id.  My first thought
was
> to
> just reuse the message-id header, but that is typically reserved for
> cases
> when a client is expecting to acknowledge a message.  So rather than
> risk
> breaking that paradigm, I created a new header "command-id" that is
just
> used on the connect message.  When the broker receives a connect
request
> with a command-id header, it creates a connected response with a
> correlation-id set to the command-id of the original request.  This
way
> the
> client can treat the handshake as a true request/response.
>
> Does anyone see any problems with adding this to the broker?
>
> Regards,
> Nate
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>
>     http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>


-- 

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


Mime
View raw message