activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nathan Mittler" <nathan.mitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: STOMP and JMSType
Date Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:16:26 GMT
On 6/14/06, James Strachan <james.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/13/06, Nathan Mittler <nathan.mittler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So it sounds like we're all in agreement on the content-type
> header.  For
> > text, it would be something like "text"
>
> There could be a few values of Content-type which map to text
> (text/xml, application/soap, application/xml etc).
>
> Incidentally the default implementation for sending an ObjectMessage /
> MapMessage to a Stomp client could be to use XStream to turn it into
> XML and mark it as text/xml. Otherwise its gonna be extremely hard for
> a typical Stomp client to read the message.


So if we were to have text, object, and map messages all with a content-type
of "text/xml", then we would need another parameter, such as the
"amq-msg-type" that tells a JMS-like stomp client (such as CMS) which it is,
so it can create the appropriate object to return to the user.  I could key
off the amq-msg-type and then check the content-type to make sure it's XML,
as expected.  Then I could parse the XML to create the MapMessage, for
example.  Not quite sure how ObjectMessages would work, however.

> and for bytes it would be
> > "application/octet-stream".  So this would not be an application-level
> > header, but would be used by my stomp client code to determine which
> message
> > type to create.
> >
> > If we're all in agreement with that, then it seems to make sense that
> the
> > default functionality of the broker be modified to handle content-type
> in
> > this way.
> >
> > And if that's true, then it seems like this particular issue is
> resolved.
> > This way, we get it into the 4.1 release with no problems.  We can
> create
> > another issue to do the refactoring as you've suggested ... which will
> > probably take a little more time and several conversations to get right.
> >
> > How does this sound?
>
> Sounds great.
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>

Regards,
Nate

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message