qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rafael Schloming <...@alum.mit.edu>
Subject Re: AMQP 1.0 connection property names
Date Wed, 14 May 2014 17:58:18 GMT
I don't object, but one thing that strikes me as a little odd with the
original names was the use of both '.' and '_' as separators
(qpid.client_pid vs qpid.client.pid).

Now I don't know what conventions these names are supposed to follow, but
my best guess would be that '.' should be used for separating namespaces
and '_' for separating words in a compound phrase. In this case I can see
it both ways, but if you think there might be other process related things
in the future then it might be worth thinking of process as a namespace and
going with process.name and process.id.

--Rafael


On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 05/13/2014 08:25 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
>> On 13 May 2014 17:59, Justin Ross <jross@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How about process_name and process_id then?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I like those.  I don't think brevity is important in this case, and those
>>> names are very clear to me.
>>>
>>>
>> Works for me too.
>>
>
> Ok, does anyone object to process_name and process_id?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>

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