You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Ernie Allen <ea...@redhat.com> on 2015/10/23 16:54:04 UTC
Review Request 39596: DISPATCH-186 - Add singleton annotation to
sslProfile
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh M, Kenneth Giusti, mick goulish, and Ted Ross.
Repository: qpid-dispatch
Description
-------
Sets singleton=true for the sslProfile annotation.
Also adds an "annotatedBy" list to an entity in the JSON schema so the console can see which annotations are singletons.
The sslProfile annotation contains the attributes certDb, certFile, keyFile, passwordFile, and password.
Both the listener and connector are annotated by sslProfile and the values for these attributes should be the same. In the console, we want to enter the sslProfile attributes only once.
This change gives the console enough information to separate the sslProfile attributes into their own form so they can be entered only once and then applied to all listeners and connectors.
Diffs
-----
python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json c5b1edb
python/qpid_dispatch_internal/management/schema.py 8f7e961
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/diff/
Testing
-------
bin/test.sh
Thanks,
Ernie Allen
Re: Review Request 39596: DISPATCH-186 - Add singleton annotation to
sslProfile
Posted by Ernie Allen <ea...@redhat.com>.
> On Oct. 23, 2015, 7:31 p.m., Alan Conway wrote:
> > A "singleton" means there can only be one, but you could have multiple sslProfiles in a configuration. An sslProfile is a set of parameters that can be re-used for more than one connection, but it is not the *only* set of SSL parameters that can be used in a router. A broker that participates in multiple security domains or accepts connections from clients with different SSL-based security might have multiple SSL profiles.
> >
> > The idea behind all the "annotations" is that they are not themselves entities, they are pre-packaged sets of attributes that can be applied to one or more entities. They are purely convenience, you could specify your configuration entirely in terms of entity attributes and not use the annotations at all. They are handy when you have a bunch of attributes that will have the same values for multiple entities - for example lots of connections might share common security settings.
Using singleton was a poor choice on my part. I've changed it to referential.
The sslProfile annotation can indeed by treated like a separate entity in the config file. It can be referenced by name like so:
ssl-profile {
name: ssl-profile-name
cert-db: /home/eallen/blah/blah/ca-certificate.pem
cert-file: /home/eallen/blah/blah/server-certificate.pem
key-file: /home/eallen/blah/blah/server-private-key.pem
password: server-password
}
listener {
role: inter-router
addr: 0.0.0.0
port: 20102
sasl-mechanisms: EXTERNAL
ssl-profile: ssl-profile-name
requirePeerAuth: yes
}
My changes don't affect the working of the schema parser. They only decorate the schema and output the decorations in the JSON file.
- Ernie
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/#review103834
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 23, 2015, 2:54 p.m., Ernie Allen wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Oct. 23, 2015, 2:54 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh M, Kenneth Giusti, mick goulish, and Ted Ross.
>
>
> Repository: qpid-dispatch
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Sets singleton=true for the sslProfile annotation.
> Also adds an "annotatedBy" list to an entity in the JSON schema so the console can see which annotations are singletons.
>
> The sslProfile annotation contains the attributes certDb, certFile, keyFile, passwordFile, and password.
> Both the listener and connector are annotated by sslProfile and the values for these attributes should be the same. In the console, we want to enter the sslProfile attributes only once.
>
> This change gives the console enough information to separate the sslProfile attributes into their own form so they can be entered only once and then applied to all listeners and connectors.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json c5b1edb
> python/qpid_dispatch_internal/management/schema.py 8f7e961
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> bin/test.sh
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ernie Allen
>
>
Re: Review Request 39596: DISPATCH-186 - Add singleton annotation to
sslProfile
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/#review103834
-----------------------------------------------------------
A "singleton" means there can only be one, but you could have multiple sslProfiles in a configuration. An sslProfile is a set of parameters that can be re-used for more than one connection, but it is not the *only* set of SSL parameters that can be used in a router. A broker that participates in multiple security domains or accepts connections from clients with different SSL-based security might have multiple SSL profiles.
The idea behind all the "annotations" is that they are not themselves entities, they are pre-packaged sets of attributes that can be applied to one or more entities. They are purely convenience, you could specify your configuration entirely in terms of entity attributes and not use the annotations at all. They are handy when you have a bunch of attributes that will have the same values for multiple entities - for example lots of connections might share common security settings.
- Alan Conway
On Oct. 23, 2015, 2:54 p.m., Ernie Allen wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Oct. 23, 2015, 2:54 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh M, Kenneth Giusti, mick goulish, and Ted Ross.
>
>
> Repository: qpid-dispatch
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Sets singleton=true for the sslProfile annotation.
> Also adds an "annotatedBy" list to an entity in the JSON schema so the console can see which annotations are singletons.
>
> The sslProfile annotation contains the attributes certDb, certFile, keyFile, passwordFile, and password.
> Both the listener and connector are annotated by sslProfile and the values for these attributes should be the same. In the console, we want to enter the sslProfile attributes only once.
>
> This change gives the console enough information to separate the sslProfile attributes into their own form so they can be entered only once and then applied to all listeners and connectors.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json c5b1edb
> python/qpid_dispatch_internal/management/schema.py 8f7e961
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> bin/test.sh
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ernie Allen
>
>
Re: Review Request 39596: DISPATCH-186 - Add an indication that an
annotation can be referenced by name
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
> On Oct. 30, 2015, 12:02 p.m., Justin Ross wrote:
> > I don't understand the true constraints here. It seems to be a UI-driven one, about what should be listed in the UI and what should not be, so I'd search more in the direction of indexed=false or listed=false or hidden=true.
> >
> > In any case, I think "referential" is the wrong word. It's (1) obscure and (2) doesn't unambiguously indicate the referent in this usage. I guess referent=true would, but again, too weird. If you go with some variant of refer, I'd go referenceable. A third grader would understand that.
Background: we have managed "entities" which are things with attributes, such as connections or connectors. Some of those entities (in particular connections/connectors) have fairly complicated "groups" of related attributes that often have the same settings for multiple entities, for examle the same SSL settings for many connections. We call those groups "annotations" after the AMQP management spec (another poorly chosen word) and in a config file you can specify the group of attributes once and name it, then refer to it by name in several entities as a shorthand compared to repeating all the attribute values. The original UI just shows each entity with all its attributes flattened out, but it is easier to read e.g. the SSL attributes by turning them into a named group because the attribute values themselves are long and usually not that interesting, it is more interesting to quickly identify which connections have the *same* set of attributes. However not all things that are "annot
ations" in the schema are interesting in this way, hence the search for a way to identify the ones that are.
Its very possible that some rework of the schema could help too, to align the use of annotations more closely with "things that are interesting to name as groups" so they could be one and the same. Annotations evolved by munghing ideas in the original dispatch config file with related ideas in the AMQP management spec, they may not have reached their ideal form yet.
- Alan
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/#review104553
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m., Ernie Allen wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh M, Kenneth Giusti, mick goulish, and Ted Ross.
>
>
> Repository: qpid-dispatch
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Adds a new attribute to entities named referential. If true then the entity/annotation could be referred to by name. This is to give the console enough information to separate out the sslProfile attributes.
>
> schema.py can already handle the case where a listener/connector contains a ssl-profile=<sslProfileName> attribute.
>
> I chose the name 'referential' to indicate that an annotation can be referred to by name. Another possibility is 'referable'.
>
> I also added an "references" list to an entity in the JSON schema. This list is only emitted if any of the entity's annotations are marked as referential.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json c5b1edb
> python/qpid_dispatch_internal/management/schema.py 8f7e961
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> bin/test.sh
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ernie Allen
>
>
Re: Review Request 39596: DISPATCH-186 - Add an indication that an
annotation can be referenced by name
Posted by Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/#review104553
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand the true constraints here. It seems to be a UI-driven one, about what should be listed in the UI and what should not be, so I'd search more in the direction of indexed=false or listed=false or hidden=true.
In any case, I think "referential" is the wrong word. It's (1) obscure and (2) doesn't unambiguously indicate the referent in this usage. I guess referent=true would, but again, too weird. If you go with some variant of refer, I'd go referenceable. A third grader would understand that.
- Justin Ross
On Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m., Ernie Allen wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh M, Kenneth Giusti, mick goulish, and Ted Ross.
>
>
> Repository: qpid-dispatch
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Adds a new attribute to entities named referential. If true then the entity/annotation could be referred to by name. This is to give the console enough information to separate out the sslProfile attributes.
>
> schema.py can already handle the case where a listener/connector contains a ssl-profile=<sslProfileName> attribute.
>
> I chose the name 'referential' to indicate that an annotation can be referred to by name. Another possibility is 'referable'.
>
> I also added an "references" list to an entity in the JSON schema. This list is only emitted if any of the entity's annotations are marked as referential.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json c5b1edb
> python/qpid_dispatch_internal/management/schema.py 8f7e961
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> bin/test.sh
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ernie Allen
>
>
Re: Review Request 39596: DISPATCH-186 - Add an indication that an
annotation can be referenced by name
Posted by Ernie Allen <ea...@redhat.com>.
> On Oct. 29, 2015, 1:07 p.m., Kenneth Giusti wrote:
> > Although I personally don't like the term 'referental' - the intent is not made obvious (to me) by that name.
> >
> > So... I'm copying our Naming Top Dog on this review: Justin
How about 'referable'? Or possibly 'ui-Referable'? We could use the 'ui-' prefix on all console meta data.
- Ernie
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/#review104421
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m., Ernie Allen wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh M, Kenneth Giusti, mick goulish, and Ted Ross.
>
>
> Repository: qpid-dispatch
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Adds a new attribute to entities named referential. If true then the entity/annotation could be referred to by name. This is to give the console enough information to separate out the sslProfile attributes.
>
> schema.py can already handle the case where a listener/connector contains a ssl-profile=<sslProfileName> attribute.
>
> I chose the name 'referential' to indicate that an annotation can be referred to by name. Another possibility is 'referable'.
>
> I also added an "references" list to an entity in the JSON schema. This list is only emitted if any of the entity's annotations are marked as referential.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json c5b1edb
> python/qpid_dispatch_internal/management/schema.py 8f7e961
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> bin/test.sh
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ernie Allen
>
>
Re: Review Request 39596: DISPATCH-186 - Add an indication that an
annotation can be referenced by name
Posted by Kenneth Giusti <kg...@apache.org>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/#review104421
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it!
Although I personally don't like the term 'referental' - the intent is not made obvious (to me) by that name.
So... I'm copying our Naming Top Dog on this review: Justin
- Kenneth Giusti
On Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m., Ernie Allen wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh M, Kenneth Giusti, mick goulish, and Ted Ross.
>
>
> Repository: qpid-dispatch
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Adds a new attribute to entities named referential. If true then the entity/annotation could be referred to by name. This is to give the console enough information to separate out the sslProfile attributes.
>
> schema.py can already handle the case where a listener/connector contains a ssl-profile=<sslProfileName> attribute.
>
> I chose the name 'referential' to indicate that an annotation can be referred to by name. Another possibility is 'referable'.
>
> I also added an "references" list to an entity in the JSON schema. This list is only emitted if any of the entity's annotations are marked as referential.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json c5b1edb
> python/qpid_dispatch_internal/management/schema.py 8f7e961
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> bin/test.sh
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ernie Allen
>
>
Re: Review Request 39596: DISPATCH-186 - Add an indication that an
annotation can be referenced by name
Posted by Ernie Allen <ea...@redhat.com>.
> On Oct. 28, 2015, 1:41 p.m., Alan Conway wrote:
> > Sorry if I'm being thick, but can't *all* annotations be referenced by name? Do we need the extra marker, i.e. is there a difference between a "referential" and a "non-referenetial" annotation? Its been a while since I was in this code so maybe there's something I've forgotten.
We only need the extra marker for the console. It needs an indication of which annotations should be separated in the UI.
- Ernie
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/#review104287
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m., Ernie Allen wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh M, Kenneth Giusti, mick goulish, and Ted Ross.
>
>
> Repository: qpid-dispatch
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Adds a new attribute to entities named referential. If true then the entity/annotation could be referred to by name. This is to give the console enough information to separate out the sslProfile attributes.
>
> schema.py can already handle the case where a listener/connector contains a ssl-profile=<sslProfileName> attribute.
>
> I chose the name 'referential' to indicate that an annotation can be referred to by name. Another possibility is 'referable'.
>
> I also added an "references" list to an entity in the JSON schema. This list is only emitted if any of the entity's annotations are marked as referential.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json c5b1edb
> python/qpid_dispatch_internal/management/schema.py 8f7e961
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> bin/test.sh
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ernie Allen
>
>
Re: Review Request 39596: DISPATCH-186 - Add an indication that an
annotation can be referenced by name
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
> On Oct. 28, 2015, 1:41 p.m., Alan Conway wrote:
> > Sorry if I'm being thick, but can't *all* annotations be referenced by name? Do we need the extra marker, i.e. is there a difference between a "referential" and a "non-referenetial" annotation? Its been a while since I was in this code so maybe there's something I've forgotten.
>
> Ernie Allen wrote:
> We only need the extra marker for the console. It needs an indication of which annotations should be separated in the UI.
>
> Alan Conway wrote:
> Is there a reason not to separate all annotations? That would save us the extra tag and attendant bikeshed controversy over what to call it. On the other hand, if there is a reason then Ship It.
>
> "referential" does have the advantage that I immediately realize I don't know what it means, instead of thinking I know what it means and only figuring out much later that I don't.
>
> Ernie Allen wrote:
> "Is there a reason not to separate all annotations?"
> The other annotations (as of now) are connectionRole and addrPort.
> - connectionRole only has a single attribute so it seems wrong to separate it out, give it a name, and then refer to it by name.
> - addrPort could be separated if more than one section in the config file needed to refer to the same addr/port. But I don't think that is the case now.
> If we were to list all the annotations that applied to an entity, I'd still need to know which ones should be treated separatly in the UI.
>
> Instead of "referential" I could use "this-annotation-should-be-separated-and-referred-to-by-name-in-the-UI". *Apologies if that comment comes accross as snide. It was intended as tongue-in-cheek.*
> Actually, reading that fake name gave me an idea: How about 'ui-separate'?
>
> Or I could just hard-code that the listener and connector entities use the sslProfile annotation. That would avoid any changes to the schema.
Ship it. There's nothing more unsightly than someone with their tounge outside their cheeks.
- Alan
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/#review104287
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m., Ernie Allen wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh M, Kenneth Giusti, mick goulish, and Ted Ross.
>
>
> Repository: qpid-dispatch
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Adds a new attribute to entities named referential. If true then the entity/annotation could be referred to by name. This is to give the console enough information to separate out the sslProfile attributes.
>
> schema.py can already handle the case where a listener/connector contains a ssl-profile=<sslProfileName> attribute.
>
> I chose the name 'referential' to indicate that an annotation can be referred to by name. Another possibility is 'referable'.
>
> I also added an "references" list to an entity in the JSON schema. This list is only emitted if any of the entity's annotations are marked as referential.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json c5b1edb
> python/qpid_dispatch_internal/management/schema.py 8f7e961
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> bin/test.sh
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ernie Allen
>
>
Re: Review Request 39596: DISPATCH-186 - Add an indication that an
annotation can be referenced by name
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
> On Oct. 28, 2015, 1:41 p.m., Alan Conway wrote:
> > Sorry if I'm being thick, but can't *all* annotations be referenced by name? Do we need the extra marker, i.e. is there a difference between a "referential" and a "non-referenetial" annotation? Its been a while since I was in this code so maybe there's something I've forgotten.
>
> Ernie Allen wrote:
> We only need the extra marker for the console. It needs an indication of which annotations should be separated in the UI.
Is there a reason not to separate all annotations? That would save us the extra tag and attendant bikeshed controversy over what to call it. On the other hand, if there is a reason then Ship It.
"referential" does have the advantage that I immediately realize I don't know what it means, instead of thinking I know what it means and only figuring out much later that I don't.
- Alan
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/#review104287
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m., Ernie Allen wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh M, Kenneth Giusti, mick goulish, and Ted Ross.
>
>
> Repository: qpid-dispatch
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Adds a new attribute to entities named referential. If true then the entity/annotation could be referred to by name. This is to give the console enough information to separate out the sslProfile attributes.
>
> schema.py can already handle the case where a listener/connector contains a ssl-profile=<sslProfileName> attribute.
>
> I chose the name 'referential' to indicate that an annotation can be referred to by name. Another possibility is 'referable'.
>
> I also added an "references" list to an entity in the JSON schema. This list is only emitted if any of the entity's annotations are marked as referential.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json c5b1edb
> python/qpid_dispatch_internal/management/schema.py 8f7e961
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> bin/test.sh
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ernie Allen
>
>
Re: Review Request 39596: DISPATCH-186 - Add an indication that an
annotation can be referenced by name
Posted by Ernie Allen <ea...@redhat.com>.
> On Oct. 28, 2015, 1:41 p.m., Alan Conway wrote:
> > Sorry if I'm being thick, but can't *all* annotations be referenced by name? Do we need the extra marker, i.e. is there a difference between a "referential" and a "non-referenetial" annotation? Its been a while since I was in this code so maybe there's something I've forgotten.
>
> Ernie Allen wrote:
> We only need the extra marker for the console. It needs an indication of which annotations should be separated in the UI.
>
> Alan Conway wrote:
> Is there a reason not to separate all annotations? That would save us the extra tag and attendant bikeshed controversy over what to call it. On the other hand, if there is a reason then Ship It.
>
> "referential" does have the advantage that I immediately realize I don't know what it means, instead of thinking I know what it means and only figuring out much later that I don't.
"Is there a reason not to separate all annotations?"
The other annotations (as of now) are connectionRole and addrPort.
- connectionRole only has a single attribute so it seems wrong to separate it out, give it a name, and then refer to it by name.
- addrPort could be separated if more than one section in the config file needed to refer to the same addr/port. But I don't think that is the case now.
If we were to list all the annotations that applied to an entity, I'd still need to know which ones should be treated separatly in the UI.
Instead of "referential" I could use "this-annotation-should-be-separated-and-referred-to-by-name-in-the-UI". *Apologies if that comment comes accross as snide. It was intended as tongue-in-cheek.*
Actually, reading that fake name gave me an idea: How about 'ui-separate'?
Or I could just hard-code that the listener and connector entities use the sslProfile annotation. That would avoid any changes to the schema.
- Ernie
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/#review104287
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m., Ernie Allen wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh M, Kenneth Giusti, mick goulish, and Ted Ross.
>
>
> Repository: qpid-dispatch
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Adds a new attribute to entities named referential. If true then the entity/annotation could be referred to by name. This is to give the console enough information to separate out the sslProfile attributes.
>
> schema.py can already handle the case where a listener/connector contains a ssl-profile=<sslProfileName> attribute.
>
> I chose the name 'referential' to indicate that an annotation can be referred to by name. Another possibility is 'referable'.
>
> I also added an "references" list to an entity in the JSON schema. This list is only emitted if any of the entity's annotations are marked as referential.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json c5b1edb
> python/qpid_dispatch_internal/management/schema.py 8f7e961
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> bin/test.sh
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ernie Allen
>
>
Re: Review Request 39596: DISPATCH-186 - Add an indication that an
annotation can be referenced by name
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/#review104287
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sorry if I'm being thick, but can't *all* annotations be referenced by name? Do we need the extra marker, i.e. is there a difference between a "referential" and a "non-referenetial" annotation? Its been a while since I was in this code so maybe there's something I've forgotten.
- Alan Conway
On Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m., Ernie Allen wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh M, Kenneth Giusti, mick goulish, and Ted Ross.
>
>
> Repository: qpid-dispatch
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Adds a new attribute to entities named referential. If true then the entity/annotation could be referred to by name. This is to give the console enough information to separate out the sslProfile attributes.
>
> schema.py can already handle the case where a listener/connector contains a ssl-profile=<sslProfileName> attribute.
>
> I chose the name 'referential' to indicate that an annotation can be referred to by name. Another possibility is 'referable'.
>
> I also added an "references" list to an entity in the JSON schema. This list is only emitted if any of the entity's annotations are marked as referential.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json c5b1edb
> python/qpid_dispatch_internal/management/schema.py 8f7e961
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> bin/test.sh
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ernie Allen
>
>
Re: Review Request 39596: DISPATCH-186 - Add an indication that an
annotation can be referenced by name
Posted by Ernie Allen <ea...@redhat.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated Oct. 27, 2015, 4:31 p.m.)
Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Ganesh M, Kenneth Giusti, mick goulish, and Ted Ross.
Changes
-------
Changed summary and description to reflect the change from singleton to referential.
Summary (updated)
-----------------
DISPATCH-186 - Add an indication that an annotation can be referenced by name
Repository: qpid-dispatch
Description (updated)
-------
Adds a new attribute to entities named referential. If true then the entity/annotation could be referred to by name. This is to give the console enough information to separate out the sslProfile attributes.
schema.py can already handle the case where a listener/connector contains a ssl-profile=<sslProfileName> attribute.
I chose the name 'referential' to indicate that an annotation can be referred to by name. Another possibility is 'referable'.
I also added an "references" list to an entity in the JSON schema. This list is only emitted if any of the entity's annotations are marked as referential.
Diffs (updated)
-----
python/qpid_dispatch/management/qdrouter.json c5b1edb
python/qpid_dispatch_internal/management/schema.py 8f7e961
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39596/diff/
Testing
-------
bin/test.sh
Thanks,
Ernie Allen