activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hiram Chirino" <>
Subject Re: Stomp v1.1 Thoughts
Date Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:25:40 GMT
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Dejan Bosanac
<> wrote:
>> How about you also put those ideas somewhere on the wiki at:
> Done. Here's a page for this kind of material
>> 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
> - get a free ActiveMQ user guide
> ActiveMQ in Action -
> Scripting in Java -



Open Source SOA

View raw message