âContainerâ so strongly associated with docker/kubernetes/etc that I consider it a burned term for the time being.
Von: Alan Conway <aconway@redhat.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 5. November 2018 19:49
An: Clemens Vasters <clemensv@microsoft.com>
Cc: oasis-amqp-list <amqp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Betreff: Re: [amqp] Addressing Model Blog Post
The rule is that you canât say ânoâ without constructively offering a better alternative :)
Rules, rules. I like "container-name" - by analogy with "domain-name" - it is a hierarchical name for a collection of things that might themselves be containers, and may also be name that maps to concrete protocol info (on-ramp info rather
than direct IP addresses). I wouldn't mandate that container-name == container-id but that would probably be sensible in some systems. Container is pretty heavily overused but it doesn't feel like it would cause confusion and it is suitably vague.
I know destination isnât ideal for the exact reason you point out. I think of it as a working term until we find something better that doesnât clash with âaddressâ or âhostâ.
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
|