Sending as a separate mail since my responses to the previous thread are
getting bounced off :(
Hi Indika,
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:10 PM, indika kumara <indika.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As the synapse configuration is the API for end-users to program their
> solutions using synapse, the usability for the end user is important.
>
> Why does a user like in-lined configurations?
>
I feel that sequences/proxies with in-line endpoints are more readable and
easier to understand. If the endpoint was defined separately then we have to
scroll around quite a bit to get to the endpoint definition from the
sequence/proxy definition. For an example:
<sequence name="foo">
<log level="full"/>
<send>
<endpoint>
<address uri="http://some.address"/>
</endpoint>
</send>
</sequence>
<sequence name="bar">
<log level="full"/>
<send>
<endpoint key="my.endpoint"/>
</send>
</sequence>
As you can see sequence 'foo' is self contained and easier to understand
from one glimpse compared to 'bar'. Sequence 'bar' configuration does not
really tell us anything since the endpoint itself may have quite a bit of
logic in it. It could be a load balance endpoint, a secure endpoint and so
on...
Is it really difficult to give a meaningful yet unique name?
>
If you have dozens of sequences and proxies, yes. And most of the time the
user does not really gain anything from specifying names for all endpoints
either.
Or ..because there is no reuse for an endpoint configuration as currently
> the endpoints are stateful and most endpoint configurations are static. ?
>
That could be one reason too.
Thanks,
Hiranya
