You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by "Keith Wall (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2014/07/18 23:14:06 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (QPID-5615) [Java Broker] Broker and VirtualHost
should use the same API for configuration stores
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-5615?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14066883#comment-14066883 ]
Keith Wall commented on QPID-5615:
----------------------------------
Looks like quite of lot if not all of this work is done, however it is not clear to me if Rob's last question has been addressed.
> [Java Broker] Broker and VirtualHost should use the same API for configuration stores
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: QPID-5615
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-5615
> Project: Qpid
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Java Broker
> Reporter: Rob Godfrey
> Assignee: Rob Godfrey
> Fix For: 0.29
>
>
> Currently there are two different interfaces for the persisting of configured object, one which is used by objects that live directly under the broker, and one which is used by objects underneath the virtual host.
> The two APIs should be unified, the recovery process should me made generic, and a standardised way of differentiating between objects which inherit their parents store and those which manage their own should be made (Broker and VirtualHost should not be special-cased in any store logic).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org