On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Ruwan Linton <ruwan.lin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks, > > Please note that there is noway that we can manage or monitor inlined > endpoints. > > Actually even now we can monitor an inline endpoint using JMX, enable statistics and tracing. Only condition is it should have a name. If it doesn't have a name and if we enable statistics, statistics are recorded under the general name AnonymousEndpoint. If we have two of those statistics are collected under the same name. That means if I send 1 request to annon epr1 and 2 requests to annon epr 2, 3 requests will be shown under the AnonymousEndpoint. Thanks, Supun.. > Even we enforced names for inlined endpoints, there is noway (at least for > the moment) that any user can manage/monitor those endpoints, which is > simply because there is no means of retrieving inlined endpoints. > > I am holding my *strong* -1 for enforcing the name for inlined endpoints. > > To make the developers life easier we are trying to make the life of the > user a difficulty. > > Please give me a list of *tested* advantages that the user get by enforcing > a name for the inlined endpoints. > > Thanks, > Ruwan > > > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Hiranya Jayathilaka > <hiranya...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi Supun >> >> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Supun Kamburugamuva <supu...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> I think we all agree that having a meaningful name for any endpoint >>> (in-line or not) is very important >> >> >> No not really. Most users will be happy with the existing model. AFAIU >> most users do not bother with endpoint management stuff. In most production >> systems if an endpoint gets suspended then that is due to a real serious >> problem in the deployment. So the answer to that is not to use JMX to >> re-enable the endpoint but to investigate where the problem is. >> >> >>> and is a production best practice. >> >> >> That's correct. >> >> >>> So I'm still not getting why we are not agreeing to force it, because >>> the disadvantages to the user are greater than the advantages. >> >> >> Is it? IMO this change will be a major hit on the usability and the >> correctness of the model. Totally outweighs the advantages. >> >> Thanks, >> Hiranya >> >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Supun.. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:23 PM, indika kumara <indika.k...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> My point exactly :) We should keep anonymous endpoints around since they >>>>> are very useful. But the best practice should be to properly name all >>>>> endpoints. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Hiranya >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hiranya ... If you mean that we should avoid the auto generation of the >>>> names and keeps anonymous endpoints 'as-is'. That is the behavior in early >>>> days including the last release. If so... I would like to add something .. >>>> If the correctness of the operation is critical such as clustering and if >>>> the user has not specified the name , we should warn or exit. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Indika >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc >>> http://wso2.org >>> supunk.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Hiranya Jayathilaka >> >> Software Engineer; >> WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.org >> E-mail: hira...@wso2.com; Mobile: +94 77 633 3491 >> Blog: http://techfeast-hiranya.blogspot.com >> > > > > -- > Ruwan Linton > Technical Lead & Product Manager; WSO2 ESB; http://wso2.org/esb > WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.org > email: ru...@wso2.com; cell: +94 77 341 3097 > blog: http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com > -- Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc http://wso2.org supunk.blogspot.com