Github user kgiusti commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/qpid-dispatch/pull/244#discussion_r163577138
--- Diff: python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json ---
@@ -1126,6 +1126,106 @@
}
},
+ "router.config.exchange": {
+ "description":"[EXPERIMENTAL] Defines a topic exchange.",
+ "extends": "configurationEntity",
+ "operations": ["CREATE", "DELETE"],
+ "attributes": {
+ "address": {
--- End diff --
I don't think there really is any consistency - we've had
'router.config.address' and 'router.address' types from the beginning, not
'router.config.addr' etc. The compound attribute names do use "Addr" as part
of the name (while I don't like that either), but when there's a single address
attribute it's either "addr" (router.config.autolink) or "address"
(router.node). There are only two cases so consistency hasn't been established.
I just don't like the "addr" contraction in the user-facing API (and this
includes <prefix>Addr names). We use "addr" all over the _code_ as a shortcut
for "address", and I think using "addr" for autolink just seemed natural to us
programmers. But for a non-programmer does dropping the "ess" help in any way?
I feel like I'm bikeshedding this. Are there any other folks that feel
strongly either way? I'll do whatever the consensus is.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
