As per the TC call yesterday, I think option 3 is the only truly viable solution here.
> There was also a suggestion that something beyond a simple prefix may be needed,
> I will let the person behind those thoughts expand further to stop this getting
> any longer for now. That'd be me, I guess :-) My comment on prefixes is mainly that the work on the "global" addressing would potentially impact on "valid" address names, and that a simple prefix such as "queue:" might prevent the use of such addresses in a global context. As such I would probably favour a more flexible (e.g. regex) mechanism for name "mangling".
A quick thought on Destination equivalence - I'm guessing that in JMS terms two Destinations are equal iff they are of the same type (Topic/Queue/etc - derived from meta-data) and use the same *mangled* AMQP address?
--
Rob
Legally required information for business correspondence/Gesetzliche Pflichtangaben für Geschäftskorrespondenz:
http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/international/germany/email
