----- "Brice Figureau" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 14:08 +0100, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > > ----- "Brice Figureau" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > * Do you have any comments or concerns on the basic idea? > > > > > > I really like the idea. I've always be a proponent user of > queueing > > > systems. > > > > > > I'm more reluctant about having the end clients connecting to the > > > queueing system directly. REST/HTTP is imho preferrable over > Stomp > > > over SSL (ie I see a potential problem of client trust, or at > least setup > > > complexity regarding SSL). Also it might be easier to firewall > HTTP > > > than Stomp (excuse my complete ignorance about stomp here). > > > > It's just a TCP connection initiated by the client, just like http. > > OK. > > > Why do you consider REST preferable? > > Because it is something that we can consider as a standard, it is > easy to use with other tools. > > > We were talking about this last night > > and I don't really see the advantage, we'd still have a REST server > option > > for smaller clients but I think for a big setup just avoid the > HTTP. > > I do agree that it works fine for big setups. But I can only imagine > the pain of the newbie having to install ActiveMQ or RabbitMQ just to > start to learn Puppet :) sure, the intention is to have a mode that works like today for those small/beginner sites. But to greatly expand the available options for big/complex sites -- R.I.Pienaar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
