Re: [amqp-ms] RE: [amqp] Request to add filters to public registry

[Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com>]

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.