How about having following policies ALL : no matter what is the configuration at the mediator or endpoint level this aspect will be enabled for all the components, to further configure we can define what is mean by all, for example all the endpoints but not mediators or we can have a named list containing the names of the items we need to turn this on.
NONE : no matter what is the configuration at the mediator or endpoint level, this aspect will be disabled for all the component. as in ALL case we can define what is meant by NONE DEFAULT : default means the configurations at the endpoint or mediator level will take effect These are my initial thoughts. Thanks, Supun.. On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Supun Kamburugamuva <[email protected]>wrote: > +1 from me as well to the new aspect configuration. This solves the problem > more cleanly. > > I'm not clear about one thing. Shall we make this aspect configuration to > be a child of other elements like mediators and endpoints or is it a top > level configuration only? > > Thanks, > Supun.. > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Ruwan Linton <[email protected]>wrote: > >> +1, we should go for this, and I think it will be very useful in a >> production set up; if anything goes wrong and the admin wants to enable >> tracing for the full synapse config he do not have to go onto each and every >> config bit. OTOH, if he knows where the issue is he can just enable tracing >> of that proxy only. >> >> Thnaks, >> Ruwan >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Hubert, Eric >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Well, actually I thought in the same direction as Ruwan. If introducing >>> a global configuration option it should be consistent with the other >>> configurations like tracing and statistics. This was one point against >>> adding this only for any newly introduced feature like JMX notifications. If >>> we would like to use such a configuration option, than we should >>> consistently support this also for statistics and tracing. >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Hi Ruwan, >>> >>> I think if we do this the correct way, the way you've suggested is the >>> correct way. I was bit reluctant to do that because it is kind of like a >>> big change. At least at the conceptual level. >>> >>> I like your idea and I'll come up with an implementation. >>> >>> Eric, What do you think? >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Ruwan Linton >> Technical Lead & Product Manager; WSO2 ESB; http://wso2.org/esb >> WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.org >> email: [email protected]; cell: +94 77 341 3097 >> blog: http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com >> > > > > -- > Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc > http://wso2.org > supunk.blogspot.com > > > -- Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc http://wso2.org supunk.blogspot.com
