qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adel Boutros <Adelbout...@live.com>
Subject Re: Dispatch router 2-phase start
Date Mon, 15 May 2017 10:14:32 GMT
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.

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

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