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.
