synapse-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From indika kumara <>
Subject Re: Generating Names for Anon. Endpoints
Date Tue, 04 May 2010 16:25:10 GMT
> What makes you think the current approach for endpoints is 'incorrect'? If
> it is not correct then that indeed is a problem we should get fixed


As currently, we generate a random one (so unique), therefore the internal
operation is correct as far as users do not specify a name. However, as
users also specified names if we do not validate names, we cannot grantee
the uniqueness. (As per my knowledge, we do not validate names for in-lined
endpoints... I did not check code … so... I may be wrong)… Therefore, there
is a possibility for incorrect operation.

On the other hand, the generated name does not represent any context
information such as for what  this endpoint is (The ‘’ the
endpoint for the service ‘foo’ in the server 1). We cannot generate such a
meaningful name…

On the other hand, in synapse even if you have generated internally a name
for an endpoint, the end user does not know it. There is no tool for viewing
names of endpoints. Then the name will become another internal thing that
uses for the correct operation of endpoints and from the user perspective,
he cannot easily use it for diagnosing any errors, JMS monitoring, etc.
(Currently, Name is not for users but for our internal working).  A named
entity is used by a user to separate a particular entity from others
entities in both configurations and runtime data.  In synapse, Statistics
(JMX) is one … JMS monitoring is another, error log analyzing is another
one… However, the clustering is not. It is an internal operation.  For such
an internal operation, generating a name or id is perfectly OK as it is not
for users.    Name is for users …. Internally generated ID is for internal

That is why I would like, at least for any operations that require an
endpoint name, to warn (at latest) users if there is no name has been

Making the name mandatory will be too good as it brings more advantages for
users than disadvantages.

A user will only recognize the importance of a context aware meaningful
name, when things go wrong and he need to identify the error based on the
information in the logs. …If it was a very random issue and cannot be easily
reproduced, what kind of feeling will he feel? … I believe, after that day,
we will put names carefully – not just a unique name but meaningful …


View raw message