You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com> on 2016/03/04 21:09:05 UTC
Re: [dispatch] Some updated thoughts on improved link-route and
waypoint configuration
On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 21:12 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 25/02/16 20:41, Ted Ross wrote:
> > I could live with this. The only problem is that "type" is
> > reserved by
> > the AMQP management spec to describe the entity-type. We would
> > need to
> > qualify it in some way (this problem exists in my proposal as
> > well).
>
> That is a shame. Is 'class' reserved? It could be an alternative to
> type
> that is still fairly familiar as a term ('category' might be
> another).
>
> > I think 'treatment' is pretty descriptive in that it describes how
> > the
> > router treats the links and deliveries it gets from the endpoints.
>
> It is descriptive, I agree. It just feels a little peculiar to me
> for
> probably the most visible/important of the fields. Not a huge issue
> (and
> I may get over it!).
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
I'm not crazy about 'treatment' but please not "type" or "class". They
are horribly over-used and are reserved words in many contexts, the
AMQP management spec is just one. E.g. a "type" attribute in python
isn't a great idea, a C++ or ruby client library couldn't use "class"
without trickery etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: [dispatch] Some updated thoughts on improved link-route and
waypoint configuration
Posted by "Gibson, Jack" <ja...@paypal.com.INVALID>.
As a consumer of the project, I personally like Justin¹s suggestion as it
clearly describes what is affected, the message distribution pattern. The
others to Alan¹s point are vague and overloaded.
Jack
On 3/5/16, 6:09 AM, "Alan Conway" <ac...@redhat.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 20:17 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
>> On 04/03/16 20:09, Alan Conway wrote:
>> > I'm not crazy about 'treatment' but please not "type" or "class".
>> > They
>> > are horribly over-used and are reserved words in many contexts, the
>> > AMQP management spec is just one.
>>
>> They are used a lot (I wouldn't say 'over-used' myself) because
>> categorising things is such a common and vital requirement.
>
>Exactly why words like "type", "category", "sort", "kind", "class" etc.
>should be weapons of last resort. Most things can be categorized along
>multiple dimensions: a multicast route is a type of route, a direct
>route is a type of route. So I prefer path, direction, treatment,
>distribution etc. that hint at what type of type you are specifying.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: [dispatch] Some updated thoughts on improved link-route and
waypoint configuration
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 20:17 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 04/03/16 20:09, Alan Conway wrote:
> > I'm not crazy about 'treatment' but please not "type" or "class".
> > They
> > are horribly over-used and are reserved words in many contexts, the
> > AMQP management spec is just one.
>
> They are used a lot (I wouldn't say 'over-used' myself) because
> categorising things is such a common and vital requirement.
Exactly why words like "type", "category", "sort", "kind", "class" etc.
should be weapons of last resort. Most things can be categorized along
multiple dimensions: a multicast route is a type of route, a direct
route is a type of route. So I prefer path, direction, treatment,
distribution etc. that hint at what type of type you are specifying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: [dispatch] Some updated thoughts on improved link-route and
waypoint configuration
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 04/03/16 20:09, Alan Conway wrote:
> I'm not crazy about 'treatment' but please not "type" or "class". They
> are horribly over-used and are reserved words in many contexts, the
> AMQP management spec is just one.
They are used a lot (I wouldn't say 'over-used' myself) because
categorising things is such a common and vital requirement. You can
either qualify it (e.g. route_type) at the expense of a little
redundancy in some cases, or try to come up with a synonym (e.g. kind)
that is less commonly reserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org