qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fraser Adams <fraser.ad...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject Java broker queue questions....
Date Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:29:35 GMT
Having done exchanges to death :-) .........

There appear to be *plenty* of differences between queues on the C++ 
broker and on the Java broker.

1) Is there an equivalent of ring policy in the Java broker? From what I 
can see there's a few queue types standard (I guess that's the 
equivalent of reject policy), priority, lvq and sorted - but no ring.
2) Setting the capacity seems different I had a queue with an AddressString
"testqueue; {create: receiver, node: {x-declare: {arguments: 
{'qpid.policy_type': ring, 'qpid.max_size': 500000000}}, x-bindings: 
[{exchange: 'amq.match', queue: 'testqueue', key: 'data1', arguments: 
{x-match: all, data-service: amqp-delivery, item-owner: fadams}}]}}";
the binding gets set fine but the policy and max_size get ignored. Now I 
know that x-declare is "implementation specific", but it would be nice 
if Qpid was consistent between the two brokers :-)

am I correct in thinking that for the Java broker the way to set the 
capacity is using "x-qpid-capacity"? What seems slightly odd though is 
that in the management object this is referred to as 
3) Similar to 2 the C++ broker uses qpid.max_count to specify the max 
size in messages, am I correct in thinking that the equivalent in the 
Java broker is "x-qpid-maximum-message-count" which is 
ALERT_THRESHOLD_QUEUE_DEPTH_MESSAGES. That said I'm really confused 
'cause I've noticed ALERT_THRESHOLD_QUEUE_DEPTH_BYTES which causes 
_queue.setMaximumQueueDepth, what's the difference between that and 

4) Is there an equivalent to file-size/file-count which is used in the 
C++ broker to do journal config? I'm guessing not but I can't see any 
persistence config attributes on the Queue ConfiguredObject on the Java 

I'm sure I'll find more discrepancies but I wouldn't mind answers to 
these for starters.

As a philosophical question, given all of the quirky little differences 
an interesting question might be "what exactly is Qpid"? there's two 
AMQP brokers, but both quite different, supporting different queue and 
exchange types and even with different declaration options, I guess they 
evolved separately so perhaps it's not surprising but it's *really* 
confusing :-)

I've mentioned this casually to Gordon Sim, but I think that I'm more 
adamant about this than ever now. I *really* think that some effort 
needs to be put into "branding" Qpid. Part of that is about providing 
maximum cohesion and interoperability between the brokers and the client 

Particularly now that Proton appears to be being used in say ActiveMQ 
for AMQP 1.0 support I think it becomes all the more important to have 
the "big set of features" like you have on shrink wrapped software so 
users know what Qpid is and so when someone is tasked with selecting 
between a big list of Messaging platforms it really jumps out why Qpid 
is the right choice!!


To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org

View raw message