Robert, > To be completely clear, for the "default" virtual host, are we talking > about > > i) A virtual host with name "", completely separate from all other virtual > hosts > > or > > ii) A mapping from one of the specified named virtual hosts to the default > "" name (i.e. the same virtaul host is addressed by multiple names). > > Option i) is anaologous to the default exchange I think. Option ii) is > more > like what you expect in Apache HTTPD type config (where you can map many > names to the same virtual host). > > I prefer ii) but i) is more "AMQP" ...
>From a pragmatic point of view, either option would appear exactly the same to the client in general terms (I think), so it really could be something decided by the implementation (and not necessarily explicitly defined by the spec). That said, I personally prefer option ii) as well, because if there ever comes a time where more stuff is attached to the virtual host than just a name, it would be simpler to support, I think. Tomas Restrepo [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/
