qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Ross <tr...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Using Qpid Dispatch (with C++ broker)
Date Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:58:36 GMT

On 08/19/2015 11:15 AM, Jakub Scholz wrote:
> I spent some time playing with Qpid Dispatch (0.4) in combination with Qpid
> C++ broker. I was impressed about what it does already. Big +1 to everyone
> involved.
> I still run into some issues / limitations / questions ... maybe someone
> can help with them ...
> 1) Is there some technical reason why the linkRoutePattern isn't allowed to
> contain any periods (well, apart the one at the end) and why it has to end
> with a period? In my use case, almost every address name contains several
> periods in it and in many cases the important part in the address is only
> after the last period. So it would be very useful to be able to use
> multiple periods in the linkRoutePattern prefix and to be not required to
> end the prefix with a period.

There is no technical reason for this limitation.  It was done for 
expediency to prove the link-routing concept.  This should be expanded 
to match any pattern.

> 2) The Listener allows to configure the certDB and trustedCert parameters.
> I thought that one is for CAs and one is for self signed certificates. But
> it doesn't seem to be that easy. Can someone explain how are they supposed
> to work?

This functionality comes straight from Proton.  It is my understanding 
that certDB can be for CAs or self-signed certs.  The trustedCert 
parameter can be used to constrain the set of certificates in the DB 
that are considered trusted for this listener.

Perhaps someone else can provide some more clarity.

> 3) In the configuration file, what is the relation between "router",
> "container", "listener" and "connector"? Is there some kind of hierarchy
> between them? It almost seems that "router" and "container" are entities
> which always apply to the whole Dispatch process and can be used only once.
> Is that correct?

That is correct.  In fact, we plan to combine the configuration in 
"container" and "router" into a single section (probably router) to 
reduce the confusion.

> 4) The DISPATCH-58 issue seems to be quite annoying - are there any plans
> to fix it?

Yes, I'm planning a refactor of the ingress links that will improve the 
ability to use flow control across the network.  This will likely 
improve the DISPATCH-58 issue.

> Thanks & Regards
> JAkub

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

View raw message