AW: [amqp] Addressing Model Blog Post

Container so strongly associated with docker/kubernetes/etc that I consider it a burned term for the time being.

Von: Alan Conway <>

Gesendet: Montag, 5. November 2018 19:49
An: Clemens Vasters <>
Cc: oasis-amqp-list <>
Betreff: Re: [amqp] Addressing Model Blog Post

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:23 PM Clemens Vasters < 
> wrote:

The rule is that you can t say no without constructively offering a better alternative :)

Rules, rules.
I like "container-name" - by analogy with "domain-name" - it is a hierarchical name for a collection of things that might themselves be containers, and may also be name that maps to concrete protocol info (on-ramp info rather
than direct IP addresses).
I wouldn't mandate that container-name == container-id but that would probably be sensible in some systems.
Container is pretty heavily overused but it doesn't feel like it would cause confusion and it is suitably vague.

I know destination isn t ideal for the exact reason you point out.
I think of it as a working term until we find something better that doesn t clash with address or host .

Von:
 im Auftrag von Alan Conway < 
>
Gesendet: Montag, November 5, 2018 6:09 PM
An: Clemens Vasters
Cc: oasis-amqp-list
Betreff: Re: [amqp] Addressing Model Blog Post

Interesting read!
I'm in general agreement with the proposed syntax and rationale.

But I have a Nit to Pick: "In the OASIS AMQP Technical Committee, we will add the abstract notion of destination into the addressing specification".

NOOOooooo! It can't be called a "destination"!!

to:( fred.com )/x
- sending stuff to a thing in fred - very destination-like

source:( fred.com )/y
- getting stuff from a thing in fred - NOT A DESTINATION

( fred.com )
could contain targets, sources, request-response servers, named or anonymous relays, who knows what else.
It might be reached by opening a TCP connection, accepting a TCP connection, routed intermediaries, sidecars, fabrics, clouds, fogs, bogs or homing pigeons.
It is in no sense limited to being a "destination" of anything.

(I'm senstive from efforts to bridge bi-directional AMQP to HTTP technologies steeped in unidirectional-client-server assumptions.
I really don't want assumptions of directionality
in the language of the AMQP addressing spec itself!!!)

Not sure what to call this protocol-independent name/identifier/address, but it can't imply one-directional communication: container, node, host, endpoint, thing, object, place,
name, moniker, handle, doohicky ... the English language doesn't have enough vague nouns for our industry.

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Clemens Vasters < 
> wrote:

I put together a blog post on the considerations behind the proposed addressing model that we discussed on the last call and looking ahead to what a complementing routing spec might
cover

https://vasters.com/blog/a-new-network/