The rule is that you can’t say “no” without constructively offering a better alternative :)
I know destination isn’t ideal for the exact reason you point out. I think of it as a working term until we find something better that doesn’t clash with “address” or “host”.
Von: amqp@lists.oasis-open.org im Auftrag von Alan Conway <aconway@redhat.com>
Gesendet: Montag, November 5, 2018 6:09 PM
An: Clemens Vasters
Cc: oasis-amqp-list
Betreff: Re: [amqp] Addressing Model Blog Post
Interesting read! I'm in general agreement with the proposed syntax and rationale.
But I have a Nit to Pick: "In the OASIS AMQP Technical Committee, we will add the abstract notion of destination into the addressing specification".
NOOOooooo! It can't be called a "destination"!!
to:(fred.com)/x
- sending stuff to a thing in fred - very destination-like
source:(fred.com)/y
- getting stuff from a thing in fred - NOT A DESTINATION
(fred.com)
could contain targets, sources, request-response servers, named or anonymous relays, who knows what else. It might be reached by opening a TCP connection, accepting a TCP connection, routed intermediaries, sidecars, fabrics, clouds, fogs, bogs or homing pigeons.
It is in no sense limited to being a "destination" of anything.
(I'm senstive from efforts to bridge bi-directional AMQP to HTTP technologies steeped in unidirectional-client-server assumptions. I really don't want assumptions of directionality in the language of the AMQP addressing spec itself!!!)
Not sure what to call this protocol-independent name/identifier/address, but it can't imply one-directional communication: container, node, host, endpoint, thing, object, place, name, moniker, handle, doohicky ... the English language doesn't
have enough vague nouns for our industry.
I put together a blog post on the considerations behind the proposed addressing model that we discussed on the last call and looking ahead to what a complementing routing spec might cover
|