Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 24464 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2009 07:26:10 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Jul 2009 07:26:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 35565 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jul 2009 07:26:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 35495 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jul 2009 07:26:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@qpid.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@qpid.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 35482 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jul 2009 07:26:19 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:26:19 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.0 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gsim@redhat.com designates 66.187.233.31 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.187.233.31] (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:26:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n667PjmF014526 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:25:45 -0400 Received: from pobox.fab.redhat.com (pobox.fab.redhat.com [10.33.63.12]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n667Pi3V013625 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:25:44 -0400 Received: from [10.11.12.119] (vpn-12-119.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.119]) by pobox.fab.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n667Pg2n010894 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:25:43 -0400 Message-ID: <4A51A884.3090501@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:32:20 +0100 From: Gordon Sim Organization: Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.,Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903,Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA) and David Owens (Ireland) User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: users@qpid.apache.org Subject: Re: qpid + Java without JMS...? References: <4a4e08ed.8d53f10a.712b.0908@mx.google.com> <0e7001c9fdef$208a85d0$619f9170$@net> In-Reply-To: <0e7001c9fdef$208a85d0$619f9170$@net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on 172.16.52.254 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Andrew M wrote: > Could someone direct me to docs or an example showing how to create topics > with include last image caching using java? I'm no expert on the JMS clients binding url format. However I modified the properties of the direct example[1] as a simple test: 1. create your exchange (I could only get a topic exchange to work): qpid-config add exchange topic my-exchange --ive 2. configure binding URL for the destination: destination.directQueue = topic://my-exchange//?routingkey='routing_key' 3. run the Producer 4. now run a Consumer, and see that it (only) gets the last message Hope this helps. [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/trunk/qpid/java/client/example/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/example/jmsexample/direct > Thanks, > Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Greig [mailto:robert.j.greig@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 8:35 AM > To: users@qpid.apache.org > Subject: RE: qpid + Java without JMS...? > > 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 > 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 > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.12.90/2200 - Release Date: 07/02/09 > 18:06:00 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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