qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Greig <robert.j.gr...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: qpid + Java without JMS...?
Date Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:34:34 GMT
My issue at the time was why have a 'unnamed' exchange? Why not just use amq.direct? Also why
bake that into the protocol rather than just allowing implementations to offer that as an
option - if you are using a higher level abstraction such as JMS or WCF the bindings are reliably
handled for you.

RG

-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com>
Sent: 03 July 2009 02:59
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: qpid + Java without JMS...?

Robert Greig wrote:
> I seem to recall that we bind both to the unnamed exchange and
> amq.direct. There was a lot of debate at the time about this (well I
> argued about it!). I was and still am of the opinion that the unnamed
> exchange is pointless and confusing and introduced for a very bad
> reason - namely treating the protocol as an API.

Yes, there is always a binding to the default exchange for each queue, 
using the queue name as the binding key. This is created automatically 
by the broker and the bindings from the default exchange cannot be 
altered (except indirectly through the creation and deletion of queues).

The default exchange in my view is that it provides an error free direct 
addressing mode for queues and avoids the need for any explicit bindings 
in that simple case. To me that has value.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:users-subscribe@qpid.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:users-subscribe@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message