amqp — archive

[Rob Godfrey]

> I agree with the intent. However I'm not so sure its a good idea > (a) to use 'amqp' in 'vendor' extensions and > (b) to use 'amqp' unqualified for legacy support for pre 1.0 concepts. I understand the concern, however these are designed solely to be use as the basis for heritage AMQP mappings. For a more general exact or pattern matching scheme I would choose a different syntax. I'd happily add "LEGACY_" before AMQP or "V0.X_" to distinguish these as pre-1.0 concepts if people prefer that. > What about simply: subject-filter-exact, subject-filter-hierarchical and properties-match-filter? > They would potentially be applicable even in implementations that were not based on the old pre-1.0 concepts. These are reasonable names, my main concern with this route is that it points to a somewhat verbose approach to filtering where we would define multiple filter types for each field of the standard message structure (content-type-exact, content-type-filter... etc.). Clearly a better general purpose solution might be to define an exact match filter type which takes two parameters - the field and the matching value. the only reason to call out these particular filters is because they are those supported by pre-1.0 AMQP systems. Also, Andreas rightly pointed out that the class should be "restricted" and not composite on the first example. -- Rob