qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Default virtual host (was Re: svn commit: r504087)
Date Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:44:03 GMT
Marnie McCormack wrote:
> I guess it boils down to how users will utilise the virtual hosts. At
> present, the only *really* useful feature around virtual hosts (afaik) is
> the ability to create queues/topics to be created on broker startup - the
> real purpose of virtualhosts.xml on the java broker side.

That's not really a feature of virtual hosts per se though is it? The 
only thing they bring is effectively separate namespaces for queues and 
exchanges so an exchange in one virtual host with a given name is a 
different instance from an exchange with the same name in another 
virtual host.

> I just thought that an empty string is a little confusing in terms of a
> 'name' for a virtual host. Would be nicer imho to mark a defined vh as
> default in the config.xml and use that where no vh specified on the
> connection url ?

That would be fine with me. As Tomas pointed out there will not be a 
great deal of difference between the two options from a clients 
perspective. The only issue is that a client using the default virtual 
host by name and a client not specifying one are actually sharing the 
namespace. I don't think that is a big problem myself.

View raw message