activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dejan Bosanac <dejan.bosa...@ttmsolutions.com>
Subject Re: Stomp v1.1 Thoughts
Date Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:01:09 GMT
Added to wiki wishlist.

Thanks

-- 
Dejan Bosanac


http://www.ttmsolutions.com - get a free ActiveMQ user guide

ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Scripting in Java - http://www.scriptinginjava.net



Hiram Chirino wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Dexter Tad-y <dexterbt1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>   
>> To add to the discussion, how about standardizing AMQ-1874 as part of the official
Stomp specs. The patch is thankfully part of 5.2.0 now but of course this is ActiveMQ specific.
It would be great if it becomes part of Stomp v1.1 and other Stomp brokers could follow suit.
>>
>>
>> --- On Wed, 9/24/08, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> From: Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Stomp v1.1 Thoughts
>>> To: dev@activemq.apache.org
>>> Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 9:25 PM
>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Dejan Bosanac
>>> <dejan.bosanac@ttmsolutions.com> wrote:
>>>       
>>>>> How about you also put those ideas somewhere on
>>>>>           
>>> the wiki at:
>>>       
>>>>> http://stomp.codehaus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Done. Here's a page for this kind of material
>>>>
>>>> http://stomp.codehaus.org/Stomp+v1.1+Ideas
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Some of the things I see missing in STOMP are:
>>>>> - Optional Keep Alive protocol.  Right now we have
>>>>>           
>>> to depend on the OS
>>>       
>>>>> to detect socket failure to time out a dead
>>>>>           
>>> client.  Would be nice if
>>>       
>>>>> the client could optionally agree to send a Keep
>>>>>           
>>> Alive commands when
>>>       
>>>>> the connection is idle.  That way the sever can
>>>>>           
>>> detect dead clients
>>>       
>>>>> quicker.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> I'd definitely keep this optional, since most
>>>>         
>>> Stomp clients implement
>>>       
>>>> just basic blocked reading of the socket (waiting for
>>>>         
>>> the next frame).
>>>       
>>>>> - Perhaps standardize a 'host' header in
>>>>>           
>>> the CONNECT frame to specify
>>>       
>>>>> the host name that the client is connecting to.
>>>>>           
>>> This would allow
>>>       
>>>>> implementing virtual hosting where multiple DNS
>>>>>           
>>> host entries point at
>>>       
>>>>> the same STOMP server.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> This would rock. I wonder how we could support virtual
>>>>         
>>> hosting in
>>>       
>>>> ActiveMQ ... Should it be done, by allocating a
>>>>         
>>> different path hierarchy
>>>       
>>>> for each host, so for example /queue/A on host1 would
>>>>         
>>> physically be
>>>       
>>>> queue://host1/A, etc?
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Could be.  Ideally we would have a separate broker per
>>> virtual host,
>>> that way you get more isolation.  But even if we don't
>>> implement it
>>> initially, I think it's important we reserve that
>>> header.
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dejan Bosanac
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ttmsolutions.com - get a free ActiveMQ user
>>>>         
>>> guide
>>>       
>>>> ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>> Scripting in Java - http://www.scriptinginjava.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Hiram
>>>
>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://open.iona.com
>>>       
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   



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