ues for now, and then speed-up
> implementation of our own prefix for replyTo queues.
>
> --
> Vilius
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexander Milovidov
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2025 10:45 PM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: how to separate
il 10, 2025 10:45 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: how to separate permissions for replyTo temporary queues
Hello Vilius,
I tried to use a temporary queue namespace to define security settings, and it
definitely doesn't work this way. If an application tries to use a temporary
ad
uto-delete-addresses only on replyTo
queues?
--
Vilius
-Original Message-
From: Justin Bertram
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 5:18 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: how to separate permissions for replyTo temporary queues
>
I would not expect this syntax to work. The match f
25 4:48 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: how to separate permissions for replyTo temporary queues
> ...we have decided to use random UUID temporary replyTo queues for now.
Unless I'm mistaken, this is the approach you were originally asking about for
which you wanted to separate
is is also
relatively slow operation?
--
Vilius
-Original Message-
From: Justin Bertram
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:04 PM
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: how to separate permissions for replyTo temporary queues
> I'm wondering what is the performance penalty of
sion='SEND' on address
> d649d0ca-15de-11f0-a16a-42010a5aa004 [condition = amqp:unauthorized-access]
>
> --
> Vilius
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Vilius Šumskas
> Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 10:02 PM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject:
-Original Message-
> From: Justin Bertram
> Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 9:36 PM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: how to separate permissions for replyTo temporary queues
>
> > Another penalty I suppose is queue scanning every
> "address-queue-scan-period
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: how to separate permissions for replyTo temporary queues
> Another penalty I suppose is queue scanning every
"address-queue-scan-period"?
Unless you've disabled scanning (i.e. by setting address-queue-scan-period to
-1) the broker is alr
t: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 9:36 PM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: how to separate permissions for replyTo temporary queues
>
> > Another penalty I suppose is queue scanning every
> "address-queue-scan-period"?
>
> Unless you've disabled scanning (i
Vilius
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Justin Bertram
> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:04 PM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: how to separate permissions for replyTo temporary queues
>
> > I'm wondering what is the performance penalty of h
riginal Message-
> From: Justin Bertram
> Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 5:18 PM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: how to separate permissions for replyTo temporary queues
>
> >
> match="^[0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}$&quo
>
I would not expect this syntax to work. The match for a security-setting
must conform to the wildcard syntax [1] which specifically states:
...wildcard characters cannot be used like wildcards in a regular
expression.
> Are we doing something wrong? Should we just rely on the fact that it
12 matches
Mail list logo
