qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Godfrey <rob.j.godf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Qpid Dispatch Router component
Date Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:24:23 GMT
On 11 October 2013 13:19, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 10/11/2013 11:52 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>> On 11 October 2013 11:54, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Second, the code in Dispatch Router is in theory designed around a
>>> toolkit
>>> for building  AMQP 'containers' of different kinds, with the router being
>>> one such example (another might be a proxy focused more on enforcing ACLs
>>> at the edge). In theory this could be viewed as an API of sorts. However
>>> I
>>> think at this point its better viewed as a sensible desire for some
>>> internal structure and separation of concerns. A publishable 'API' is in
>>> my
>>> view some way off and would require a lot of work that would at this
>>> point
>>> distract from the main goal, which is to define the behaviour of the
>>> router
>>> and implement it.
>>>  This would be really cool... though I would hope/think this would lead
>> to a
>> spin-off new component for the toolkit rather than being part of Dispatch
>> itself?
> That would make sense to me, though I think we should cross that bridge if
> and when we ever come to it. (E.g. if a new component emerges that wants to
> reuse some of the same codebase).
Yeah - that makes sense.

>   As such (and for the reasons you also allude to) I would think
>> this would not be a goal of Dispatch itself, but rather some sort of
>> stated
>> aim and guiding principle of the development.
> To me, the focus has to be on demonstrating the vision (and proving it
> works and has value). The rest is just good programming practice (modular
> design, with minimal coupling and maximum cohesion).

>   Going off-topic a bit I
>> guess... but would we see such a framework as having multiple
>> implementations (in different languages) or only in C?
> Again, to me the language used is secondary to the goal of proving the
> concept with real, deployable software. I do think that the communication
> patterns on top of AMQP between routers should be very clearly spelled out
> to allow clones or alternative implementations following the same rules to
> be developed if anyone anywhere has the desire to do so.
Agreed on all the above :)

-- Rob

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

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message