I agree - the vh is incidental to the queues-at-broker-startup definition. It's just the only thing I know of where users really 'see' vhs apart from connection urls :-)
M On 2/8/07, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
