Hi! I am wondering what was the reason to make this very awkward change in 1.7 by using URI in "db_name" in the /etc/rhn/rhn.conf other than "because now our Java can connect different way"?
My opinion on that: 1. This is called *db_name*. So let it be the *name*. 2. This is not called "db_uri" as it is right now for some reasons. 3. It duplicates values from "db_host" and "db_port", making them obsolete and/or irrelevant. 4. It adds mess and noise to the configuration: if we already have the URI, why the heck we still have host and port defined? 5. If your particular place in your particular software supposed to use URI instead of plain name, then why not construct it there, instead of parse-and-reconstruct anyway, because if other code don't need to use this notation? 6. It is still not called "db_uri". Because "host:port//name" is not a *name* but resource location! So the semantics are wrong anyway now. The bottom line is that if this particular syntax needs to be there, then better add one more parameter "db_uri". IOW: http://goo.gl/e8l8v I would vote to change it back as it was in 1.2 version. -- Bo _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
