On 08/08/2013 02:07 PM, Jakub Scholz wrote:
What about keeping the UUID but prefixing it with any authenticated
userid? That at least means the userid will by default be in the
subscription queue names (and easily deducible from container-id), but by
default will always be unique also.
That is definitely better than UUID only.
I'm also wondering whether this isn't also a question of 100 people having
100 opinions - we might have problem finding something what would fit
everyone.
Indeed. However we are only talking about the default. An explicit scheme
can always be used by setting the connection option. Obviously this
requires clients to adhere to some defined scheme. That seems unavoidable
(but would be nice to be able to use ACL to enforce it perhaps, i.e.
restrict use of particular container id patterns by user?)
Yes, that would be very nice. In relation to the default container naming
as suggested above, without the ACL you can easily "fake" the container
name to another user.
Maybe the container id is the wrong thing to focus on. Maybe I should
change the naming scheme for the subscriptions queues to be
userid.container-id.link-name? That way there is no way to fake the
association to user in the queue name, and from your original mail it
sounds like that might be the most important part?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
