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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

amqp message

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

Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] (AMQP-126) Sole Connection Detection Policy needs clarification

Lorenz Quack created AMQP-126:

             Summary: Sole Connection Detection Policy needs clarification
                 Key: AMQP-126
                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/AMQP-126
             Project: OASIS Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP) TC
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: Sole Connection
    Affects Versions: soleconn-WD2
            Reporter: Lorenz Quack

I find Section 3.2.2 of the specification unclear.
To wrap my brain around the rules and when a certain detection policy would trigger the enforement policy I consider 4 cases: an existing connection does/doesn't have sole connction enforement (SCE) permutated with the new connection having/not having SCE.
Then my reading of the spec gives me this table:

  | old conn |  new conn ||  "strong" | "weak"
1 | NO SCE   |  NO SCE   ||    no     |   no
2 | NO SCE   |     SCE   ||    no     |  yes
3 |    SCE   |  NO SCE   ||    yes    |   no
4 |    SCE   |     SCE   ||    yes    |  yes

Do people agree with my reading of the spec?
Was it intended this way?

In the "strong" case I find the asymmetry between case 2 and 3 surprising.
I find it surprising that the weak policy should trigger in case 2 where the "strong" policy does not.
My guess is that the intention was that the strong policy also triggers in case 2.

Overall, I find it hard to see a clear intention behind the two detectoin policies.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

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