[rabbitmq-discuss] Simpler STOMP Behaviour

[Christian Legnitto]

I'm not. I'll get on that list.

Christian

On Oct 1, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Alexis Richardson wrote:

> Christian
> 
> We did sort of try this previously.  Now, however, the impending
> arrival of STOMP 1.1 may be an opportunity to consolidate the spec and
> standardise.  Are you following that discussion on stomp-spec?
> 
> alexis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Christian Legnitto
> <clegnitto at mozilla.com> wrote:
>> I appreciate you trying to match others. I've been trying to get generalized stomp support to work with http://github.com/LegNeato/bugzilla-push and it is a pain dealing with every broker's differing semantics. For the time being I have basically given up and have just followed what RabbitMQ is doing.
>> 
>> Have you reached out to the other projects to perhaps standardize? I know the protocol leaves it up to the broker, but it's lame that you can have everything working with one broker, slide in another and not have it work.
>> 
>> Christian
>> 
>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Rob Harrop wrote:
>> 
>>> I checked out ActiveMQ and HornetQ.
>>> 
>>> ActiveMQ has both /queue/ and /topic/ and I'm trying to match the semantics there.
>>> 
>>> HornetQ using jms.queue and jms.topic prefixes which don't fit very well :)
>>> 
>>> Rob
>>> On 1 Oct 2010, at 16:06, Marek Majkowski wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 15:35, Rob Harrop <rob at rabbitmq.com> wrote:
>>>>> Before starting work on moving the STOMP gateway to STOMP 1.1, we're doing some work to simplify the default behaviour of the STOMP gateway.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This work is proceeding on branch bug23122 of rabbitmq-stomp. I've committed DESIGN.md which outlines the new proposed behaviour. This is reproduced here for convenience, but for those who are interested please track bug23122 and provide your feedback.
>>>>> `/exchange/<name>[/<pattern>]`
>>>>> `/exchange/<name>[/<routing-key>]`
>>>>> `/queue/<name>`
>>>>> `/topic/<name>`
>>>> 
>>>> I like that very much!
>>>> 
>>>> Just for the comparison, have you looked at other STOMP
>>>> implementations? (I haven't.) How do others address resources
>>>> using STOMP?
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Marek Majkowski
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
>>> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
>>> https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
>> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
>> https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>>