amqp — archive

[Gordon Sim]

On 04/11/2012 04:48 PM, Godfrey, Robert X wrote: 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. I would certainly prefer that and it would alleviate my concerns. 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.). That certainly wasn't the intention of the suggested names - I merely wanted to avoid the use of amqp and choosing a name that described the semantics rather than the heritage was the first thing that occurred - but I accept the point.