OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

amqp-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [amqp-comment] amqp over http draft


The projected mode is specifically designed to preserve HTTP semantics at the request-level, and if I have an endpoint that accepts HTTP requests but then also accepts other messages, I need to distinguish the two kinds of messages.

Polluting the application-properties is not optimal, because that’s where all the HTTP headers go that aren’t otherwise explicitly mapped and since we aim to be transparent, I can’t really reserve a name in that section. 

At the protocol level, and that’s what we’re debating here, HTTP status line and the HTTP request line require parsing as well and what do here with the AMQP mapping is exactly equivalent, saying “this is an HTTP request with method X” or “this is an HTTP response with status Y” but we already break out the request URI from the request line into “to” for convenience.

Clemens Vasters // Architect // Microsoft Azure Messaging

Von: Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com>
Gesendet: Freitag, Mai 24, 2019 12:23 AM
An: amqp-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: Re: [amqp-comment] amqp over http draft
 
On 23/05/2019 11:08 pm, Clemens Vasters wrote:
> Question is: How do I clearly flag a message as an http message inside the bare message without having to pollute the application-properties section?

Why does it need to be flagged as an http message?

Polluting the application-properties is better than polluting the
subject but it shouldn't be required there either.

An amqp client should be able to make a request without caring whether
the service is using http or not, and should not have to put an http
marker in the message. The projected mode should not need to care which
protocol the request or response orginated in, but merely map if necessary.

Maybe your use case would be better handled by choosing the tunneled
mode though?

--Gordon.

--
This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
OASIS Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP) TC.

In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
before posting.

Subscribe: amqp-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
Unsubscribe: amqp-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
List help: amqp-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
List archive: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="">
Feedback License:
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="">
List Guidelines:
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="">
Committee:
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="">
Join OASIS:
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="">



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]