Hi Supun On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Supun Kamburugamuva <supu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I think we all agree that having a meaningful name for any endpoint > (in-line or not) is very important No not really. Most users will be happy with the existing model. AFAIU most users do not bother with endpoint management stuff. In most production systems if an endpoint gets suspended then that is due to a real serious problem in the deployment. So the answer to that is not to use JMX to re-enable the endpoint but to investigate where the problem is. > and is a production best practice. That's correct. > So I'm still not getting why we are not agreeing to force it, because > the disadvantages to the user are greater than the advantages. Is it? IMO this change will be a major hit on the usability and the correctness of the model. Totally outweighs the advantages. Thanks, Hiranya > > Thanks, > Supun.. > > > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:23 PM, indika kumara <indika.k...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> My point exactly :) We should keep anonymous endpoints around since they >>> are very useful. But the best practice should be to properly name all >>> endpoints. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Hiranya >>> >> >> Hiranya ... If you mean that we should avoid the auto generation of the >> names and keeps anonymous endpoints 'as-is'. That is the behavior in early >> days including the last release. If so... I would like to add something .. >> If the correctness of the operation is critical such as clustering and if >> the user has not specified the name , we should warn or exit. >> >> Thanks >> >> Indika >> >> > > > -- > Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc > http://wso2.org > supunk.blogspot.com > > > -- Hiranya Jayathilaka Software Engineer; WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.org E-mail: hira...@wso2.com; Mobile: +94 77 633 3491 Blog: http://techfeast-hiranya.blogspot.com
