alter rmq replicator unnecessary validation

[galaxy077]

What is the purpose of the change

XXXXX

Brief changelog

XX

Verifying this change

XXXX

Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily. Notice, it would be helpful if you could finish the following 5 checklist(the last one is not necessary)before request the community to review your PR.

• Make sure there is a Github issue filed for the change (usually before you start working on it). Trivial changes like typos do not require a Github issue. Your pull request should address just this issue, without pulling in other changes - one PR resolves one issue.
• Format the pull request title like [ISSUE #123] Fix UnknownException when host config not exist. Each commit in the pull request should have a meaningful subject line and body.
• Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
• Write necessary unit-test(over 80% coverage) to verify your logic correction, more mock a little better when cross module dependency exist. If the new feature or significant change is committed, please remember to add integration-test in test module.
• Run mvn -B clean apache-rat:check findbugs:findbugs checkstyle:checkstyle to make sure basic checks pass. Run mvn clean install -DskipITs to make sure unit-test pass. Run mvn clean test-compile failsafe:integration-test to make sure integration-test pass.
• If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

[odbozhou]

If it is not a necessary parameter, can you consider removing it from the verification?

[galaxy077]

It is also possible to remove them directly, but it is easier for me to extend or customize them. It would be better to extract the required parameters into a unified public class rather than write them for each connector

[odbozhou]

In my opinion, after the connector is implemented, the necessary configuration has been determined. In the subsequent evolution and development, of course, it is possible to challenge the verification rules of these parameters, but it is a very low-frequency operation. For example, we have some differences now. However, after our discussion this time, after confirming those that are indeed required and those that are not, there may be basically no major changes.
I think what you said about unifying the necessary parameters is a good idea. However, each connector implementation may have different validation rules, not only necessary and non-essential parameters. Can you try to tidy up some parameters though? Let's do further discussions on specific parameters?