<br>
> BTW Peter: Routing keys are in fact strings in AMQP :-)<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
That's strange... maybe I'm just getting confused by<br>a client code... Here is an example from the demo in py-amqplib...<br><br></font><div style="margin-left: 40px;"><font color="#888888"> ch.basic_publish(msg, EXCHANGE_NAME, routing_key=topic)</font><br>
</div><font color="#888888"><br>the 'routing_key' in this api, afaict, is one of three keywords: topic, fanout, direct. what is called exchange_type in the AMQP spec.<br><br>If the key is a string, and the exchange_type is opaque to the producers, then that's cool. So for my application. An admin creates the exchange, the producers post to it using AHL's or file names as routing keys, oblivious to the routing method in use.<br>
That's OK?<br><br>The next thing is that I need to be able to define routing to output queues myself, (how the routing key is interpreted.) before the clients apply their routing info, so I can say, no... my client <a href="http://talibanitravel.com">talibanitravel.com</a> has no access to the weather ob from Kandahar airport, even if they say they want it. They are perhaps allowed the ob from Peshawar, Moscow and Montreal. So data posted on the same exchange may or may not be allowed to be seen by some clients. I do that today with routing tables, others would use acl's or capabilities. per exchange permissions of some sort would work... do they exist?<br>
<br>I guess that is a function outside of AMQP (not a protocol thing, but rather a broker function?) I get the impression permissions/ACL's<br>were something applied at the queue/exchange level. Was there<br>something granular enough to apply to individual messages sent to an exchange blocking posting to queues based on routing_key?<br>
<br><br><br>
</font><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Ben Hood <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:0x6e6562@gmail.com">0x6e6562@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Kirk,<br>
<br>
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Kirk Wylie <<a href="mailto:kirk@kirkwylie.com">kirk@kirkwylie.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Would your proposed model allow for routing decisions that are based on the<br>
>> set of all bindings (or some subset thereof), rather than each individual<br>
>> binding? Ben's example - an exchange that routes to the shorted queue -<br>
>> requires the former.<br>
><br>
> It would depend on the server-side implementation as to whether that<br>
> was possible, since custom routing rules are outside the scope of the<br>
> protocol itself.<br>
<br>
Your riposte has been commented on:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://hopper.squarespace.com/blog/2008/10/7/consumer-driven-messaging.html#comments" target="_blank">http://hopper.squarespace.com/blog/2008/10/7/consumer-driven-messaging.html#comments</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>