Given that destination has too much of a from here to there directional implication, let s try terms that are only about where you want to messages to go or come from:
Place? Spot? Point?
A
place identifier is a structured name that represents a logical routing source or target.
Place identifiers are strings that follow the DNS naming conventions, but places do not have to be registered in DNS and they don t have an associated IP address.
They are just names describing logical entities in a system, and the DNS-like structure helps expressing hierarchical relationships.
A
spot identifier is a structured name that represents a logical routing source or target.
Spot identifiers are strings that follow the DNS naming conventions, but spots do not have to be registered in DNS and they don t have an associated IP address.
They are just names describing logical entities in a system, and the DNS-like structure helps expressing hierarchical relationships.
A
point identifier is a structured name that represents a logical routing source or target.
Point identifiers are strings that follow the DNS naming conventions, but points do not have to be registered in DNS and they don t have an associated IP address.
They are just names describing logical entities in a system, and the DNS-like structure helps expressing hierarchical relationships.
Von: Clemens Vasters
Gesendet: Montag, 5. November 2018 19:52
An: Alan Conway <>
Cc: oasis-amqp-list <>
Betreff: 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/
