qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Stitcher <astitc...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: QPID-6
Date Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:20:30 GMT
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 13:24 -0500, Nuno Santos wrote:
> ...
> My understanding, having only started looking into the C++ broker a 
> couple of days ago (coincidentally, to start implementing security and 
> bring it up to par with the Java broker), is that there's no actual 
> configuration files, all options are passed on the command line.
> 
> I understand and respect that there's been an effort to keep 
> configuration to an absolute minimum on the C++ broker, so maybe we can 
> follow that lead and keep SSL-related config as command line 
> parameters...

The point about there being no configuration isn't whether it's
specified on the cmd line or in a config file - both of these are
equally configuration.

It's that there should be no arbitrary parameters for the admin to
decide as it's usually hard to choose parameters like this - for
instance buffer sizes or timeouts. It's not that if you need to pass a
certificate file into the SSL that you use the cmd line rather than a
config file.

In principle I don't think there is any reason not to use a config file
- it's just not needed this kind of configuration yet. It looks like SSL
is going to provide a good justification for needing a config file, in
which case we will have to decide on a file format.

My preference for config file format would currently be YAML
(http://www.yaml.org/). As there are implementations for lots of
languages and the file format is easy to read and write by a person
(unlike XML).

It would obviously be beneficial for the C++ broker to use the same
config file as the Java broker for ease of transistion so this would be
another consideration. However then we would presumably need to add XML
persing into the C++ broker (in my experience big and unwieldy) just for
the config file.

Andrew


Mime
View raw message