[rabbitmq-discuss] Simpler STOMP Behaviour
clegnitto at mozilla.com
Fri Oct 1 19:14:30 BST 2010
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.
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 :)
> 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.
>> 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?
>> Marek Majkowski
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
More information about the rabbitmq-discuss