[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [amqp-ms] RE: [amqp] Request to add filters to public registry
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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]