qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jiri Danek <jda...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Dispatch router 2-phase start
Date Mon, 15 May 2017 10:21:01 GMT
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Adel Boutros <Adelboutros@live.com> wrote:

> Indeed, but I would not need an extra port in this case.
>
> Also, the extra management port could be used by mistake by any
> misconfigured consumer/producer.
>

You could setup a policy to allow only management on this extra port...


>
> ________________________________
> From: Jiri Danek <jdanek@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 12:04:50 PM
> To: users
> Subject: Re: Dispatch router 2-phase start
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Adel Boutros <Adelboutros@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Gordon,
> >
> >
> > With what you are proposing, the order of the configuration becomes
> > critical because if the public listener is configured before the
> connectors
> > and autolinks, I would have the same issue with the producer/consumer. So
> > my management process would have to send the management commands in a
> > predefined order.
> >
> >
> > In the case of the 2-phase start, the order of configuration is
> irrelevant
> > and the management is thus easier.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Adel
> >
>
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Adel Boutros <adelboutros@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Once all dynamic configuration is done, we send a management message to
> > allow the router to start accepting connections.
>
>
> So even with the 2-phase startup you'd have to keep the order of commands
> in mind. You'd have to send this special startup command last.
> --
> Jiří Daněk
> Messaging QA
>



-- 
Jiří Daněk
Messaging QA

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message