Re: [Pkg-puppet-devel] [RFR] templates://mcollective/{mcollective-common.templates, mcollective.templates}
Jonas Genannt wrote:
>> Meanwhile, there's still the question in my main template-review post:
>> would it make sense to eliminate the templates' references to the
>> "STOMP username/password" (default username "mcollective"), and just
>> talk about the "MCollective username/password"?
>
> I think it should be named STOMP username/password. So it does not
> depend to ActiveMQ. STOMP username/password is also needed for RabbitMQ.
I don't follow. How does "MCollective username/password" imply that
it's tied to Apache ActiveMQ?
>> And if there are hopes that the package can be made compatible with
>> multiple alternative MQ-servers, might it even be appropriate to
>> prepare for that by replacing the references to Apache ActiveMQ with
>> something more generic?
>
> yes. But Upstream supports first ActiveMQ - so the Debian package
> should also support first ActiveMQ.
Again, I don't see how this answers the question I was trying to ask.
Referring generically to "the Message Queue server" in the templates
would not prevent mcollective supporting one specific implementation;
the idea is just that it means you won't need to change the text when
you add support for others.
Perhaps my questions need to be read in their original context... see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2011/09/msg00050.html
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: