activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chuck Rolke <cro...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: AMQP 1.0 connection property names
Date Tue, 13 May 2014 16:12:48 GMT
I like having registered properties especially for common cases.

'client-pid' and 'client-name' would be my first vote.
'pid' and 'pname' second.
'pid' and 'process' third.

-C

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robbie Gemmell" <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> Cc: dev@activemq.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:47:30 AM
> Subject: Re: AMQP 1.0 connection property names
> 
> Sounds like a good idea to me. I have been meaning to do the same thing
> with some other properties like 'version' and 'product'.
> 
> My only comment around the actual names is that 'process' doesnt
> immediately make me think 'name' and even seems a little like it could be
> describing the same thing as 'pid' if you didnt know both properties
> existed, which I have always thought about the older versions too. That
> isn't to say I necessarily have a good alternative suggestion, the only
> short one I could think of was 'pname' :)
> 
> Robbie
> 
> On 13 May 2014 16:20, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > The qpid::messaging (c++), qpid.messaging (python) libraries send
> > connection properties to identify the process by name and pid among other
> > things. These are then used by the QMF support in qpidd to report the
> > process details for the connections.
> >
> > This has proven to be an extremely useful feature and is supported also
> > over AMQP 1.0. At present the property names used for both 0-10 and 1.0 are
> > qpid.client_pid and qpid.client_process.
> >
> > However I would like to send this data in an application outside of
> > qpid[1]. Having standard names for these two items over AMQP 1.0 would be
> > great. This is not to force any implementation that doesn't support or
> > recognise them to do so, merely to encourage anyone adding something
> > similar to use the same property name for better interoperability.
> >
> > I'm open to any suggestions on the names to use, but I would like to
> > submit a request to OASIS to have them added to http://www.amqp.org/
> > specification/1.0/connection-properties. My suggestion is simply to use
> > 'pid' and 'process'.
> >
> > Anyone have an opinion on this? If not I'll go ahead and send a request to
> > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/amqp-comment/
> >
> > Apologies for the cross-posting, but I figured there may be interest on
> > the ActiveMQ side as well.
> >
> > --Gordon.
> >
> > [1] Specifically a proposed 'driver' supporting AMQP 1.0 in OpenStack's
> > messaging library: https://github.com/FlaPer87/oslo.messaging/tree/gordon
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> >
> >
> 

Mime
View raw message