[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-5615?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14075507#comment-14075507
]
Rob Godfrey commented on QPID-5615:
-----------------------------------
I'm not totally happy with the API for DurableConfigurationStore - I don't
think the updateStoreStructure() method should be public
Also, I think there is overlap between the "blueprint" mechanism in
virtualHost(Node)s and the "initial store" concept in the broker - I think
these should be unified.
however I think these two points are out of scope for this JIRA and should be
raised separately. There may also be more we can do on "a standardised way of
differentiating between objects which inherit their parents store and those
which manage their own should be made (Broker and VirtualHost should not be
special-cased in any store logic)."
> [Java Broker] Broker and VirtualHost should use the same API for
> configuration stores
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: QPID-5615
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-5615
> Project: Qpid
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Java Broker
> Reporter: Rob Godfrey
> Assignee: Rob Godfrey
> Fix For: 0.29
>
>
> Currently there are two different interfaces for the persisting of configured
> object, one which is used by objects that live directly under the broker, and
> one which is used by objects underneath the virtual host.
> The two APIs should be unified, the recovery process should me made generic,
> and a standardised way of differentiating between objects which inherit their
> parents store and those which manage their own should be made (Broker and
> VirtualHost should not be special-cased in any store logic).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
