|
|
| Author |
Message |
|
| Guest |
 Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:42 pm |
 |
|
|
Guest
|
Martin Sustrik wrote:
> 1. There was channel-id parameter added to channel.open-ok.
> 2. Few methods have changed IDs.
> 3. Matching algorithm for headers exchange was changes slightly.
> 4. New parameter to Basic.Consume (not used).
> 5. Maybe something similarly simple here... I don't recall exactly.
There are also two new error codes - 'no-route' and 'no-consumers',
which need to be used in place of more generic errors in 0-8.
> What about defining the minimal set of changes to 0.8 (like the five
> points above) all of us have to do to get 0.9 (sans WIP) and implement
> that. That way we would all be interoperable and nobody would have to
> support 2 different versions of the protocol.
I like that idea.
We'd need to do a careful comparison of the *text* of the spec. Things
like new methods and fields are easy to spot and easy to implement (at
least as stubs), but subtle changes/clarifications to the semantics are
much harder to identify.
Matthias.
_______________________________________________
rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com
http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
Post recived from mailinglist |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Guys,
I cannot tell you how happy I am to see you discussing and taking
this interop thing so seriously. It just make me think I have made
the right choice going with AMQP at this point in time. Thank you so
much!!!
Michael Arnoldus
Den 23/08/2007 kl. 22.42 skrev Matthias Radestock:
> Martin Sustrik wrote:
>> 1. There was channel-id parameter added to channel.open-ok.
>> 2. Few methods have changed IDs.
>> 3. Matching algorithm for headers exchange was changes slightly.
>> 4. New parameter to Basic.Consume (not used).
>> 5. Maybe something similarly simple here... I don't recall exactly.
>
> There are also two new error codes - 'no-route' and 'no-consumers',
> which need to be used in place of more generic errors in 0-8.
>
>> What about defining the minimal set of changes to 0.8 (like the five
>> points above) all of us have to do to get 0.9 (sans WIP) and
>> implement
>> that. That way we would all be interoperable and nobody would have to
>> support 2 different versions of the protocol.
>
> I like that idea.
>
> We'd need to do a careful comparison of the *text* of the spec. Things
> like new methods and fields are easy to spot and easy to implement (at
> least as stubs), but subtle changes/clarifications to the semantics
> are
> much harder to identify.
>
>
> Matthias.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com
> http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
_______________________________________________
rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com
http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
Post recived from mailinglist |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael
Thanks! Now please let us know if you think everything works 
Do you have the client code that you were looking for a few weeks ago?
Does it work with your broker set-up?
alexis
On 8/23/07, Michael Arnoldus <chime@wiinz.com> wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I cannot tell you how happy I am to see you discussing and taking
> this interop thing so seriously. It just make me think I have made
> the right choice going with AMQP at this point in time. Thank you so
> much!!!
>
> Michael Arnoldus
>
> Den 23/08/2007 kl. 22.42 skrev Matthias Radestock:
>
> > Martin Sustrik wrote:
> >> 1. There was channel-id parameter added to channel.open-ok.
> >> 2. Few methods have changed IDs.
> >> 3. Matching algorithm for headers exchange was changes slightly.
> >> 4. New parameter to Basic.Consume (not used).
> >> 5. Maybe something similarly simple here... I don't recall exactly.
> >
> > There are also two new error codes - 'no-route' and 'no-consumers',
> > which need to be used in place of more generic errors in 0-8.
> >
> >> What about defining the minimal set of changes to 0.8 (like the five
> >> points above) all of us have to do to get 0.9 (sans WIP) and
> >> implement
> >> that. That way we would all be interoperable and nobody would have to
> >> support 2 different versions of the protocol.
> >
> > I like that idea.
> >
> > We'd need to do a careful comparison of the *text* of the spec. Things
> > like new methods and fields are easy to spot and easy to implement (at
> > least as stubs), but subtle changes/clarifications to the semantics
> > are
> > much harder to identify.
> >
> >
> > Matthias.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> > rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com
> > http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com
> http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>
--
Alexis Richardson
+44 20 7617 7339 (UK)
+44 77 9865 2911 (cell)
+1 650 206 2517 (US)
_______________________________________________
rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com
http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
Post recived from mailinglist |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are GMT
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Facebook
Stumble Upon
Technorati
