On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 17:35 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote: > Tomas Restrepo wrote: > > It sounds to me like what people might want is to have the broker > > configuration specify which of the configured virtual hosts will be the > > default. That way, if the client doesn't specify a virtual host during > > connection, it gets attached to whatever was configured as the default host. > > No? > > That sounds like a good idea to me. From an interoperability pov I just > don't want to have to configure clients and brokers to explicitly use a > specific virtual host even in cases where they don't need them. Using an > empty string in the client when it doesn't care seems nice and easy.
That's consistent with the strategy for exchanges - there's the "nameless" default exchange for publishes with an empty exchange name. I'll JIRA for the C++ client to default to the empty string, unless someone knows why "/" is a reasonable default for a virtual host name.
