qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jakub Scholz <ja...@scholz.cz>
Subject Re: Using Qpid Dispatch (with C++ broker)
Date Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:22:42 GMT
Thanks for answering the questions. I didn't found any JIRA for enhancing
the prefix in link routing, so I entered DISPATCH-159
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DISPATCH-159>.

Regards
Jakub

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:58 AM, Ted Ross <tross@redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
>

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