Symmetric Message Sending

[Hiram Chirino]

I wish the core message sending interaction between client and servers was more symmetric.  If your a client send server messages or a server sending client messages, the protocol should look the same IMHO.

For example I wish clients sent messages with:

    MESSAGE

    destination:/queue/a

    ack-id: 123

    

    hello queue a

    ^@

    

and the sever responds with a 

    ACK

    id: 123

    

    ^@

When the client receives a message he would get get a very symmetric exchange looking like:

    

    MESSAGE

    destination:/queue/a

    ack-id: 456

    

    hello queue a

    ^@

    

and the client responds with a 

    ACK

    id: 456

    

    ^@

So to get there what would we need to change?  Clients would need to use a MESSAGE frame instead of SEND

frame.  Rename the RECEIPT/receipt-id/receipt frames/headers to be ACK/id/ack-id.

This should simplify the protocol as you consolidate 2 commands (RECEIPT and ACK) into 1.

What do you guys think?    

--
Regards,
Hiram

Blog: http://hiramchirino.com

Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com/

[Lionel Cons]

Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> writes:
> What do you guys think?

IMHO:
- more symmetry is good
- you could add to this topic allowing a client to send an ERROR frame
- however this requires important changes so it should be for 2.0

Cheers,

Lionel

[Timothy Bish]

Agreed, I've never liked the MESSAGE / SEND distinction, every time I
work on a client I have to go remind myself that there's a SEND frame.
I like the ack idea too, seem much more natural.

[Thiago Morello]

Agreed. It would be great to 2.0

[Dejan Bosanac]

+1 to go with this for 2.0

Cheers
--
Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb

Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/
ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/
Blog - http://www.nighttale.net

[Jeff Mesnil]

+1 for 2.0

jeff

--
Jeff Mesnil
jme...@gmail.com
http://jmesnil.net/weblog/

[Ian Eccles]

+1 for 2.0 as well.

On Jun 23, 8:08 am, Jeff Mesnil <jmes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for 2.0
>
> jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net> wrote:
> > +1 to go with this for 2.0
> > Cheers
> > --
> > Dejan Bosanac -http://twitter.com/dejanb
>
> > Open Source Integration -http://fusesource.com/
> > ActiveMQ in Action -http://www.manning.com/snyder/

> > Blog -http://www.nighttale.net

>
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Thiago Morello <morel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Agreed. It would be great to 2.0
>

> >> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com>

> jmes...@gmail.comhttp://jmesnil.net/weblog/