JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "Partition and Node identities": http://community.jboss.org/message/529464#529464 Author : David Lloyd Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/david.lloyd@jboss.com Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- OK, then pending a final review in jboss-dev I'll plan on setting this up.   This is a good point.  If we make jvmRoute configurable and default to node.name (yeah, that's a lot of defaulting) then at least it can be "hardened".  Alternately, using a short hex- or base64-encoded hash of the node name plus a configurable (cluster-wide?) salt might be workable too.  Or some combination thereof?  In the meantime we can "punt" the issue and just force manual configuration until/unless a satisfactory solution is found.   That seems like a reasonable plan to me.  For 6, set up all the properties in bootstrap; for 7, generate them from the domain configuration.   I don't think we can solve the JBossTS case with a node name solution.  A hash wouldn't suffice, because administrators may want more direct control over the port and we probably can't avoid collisions in any case.  Apart from that, there's not a lot of options for getting from a node name to a port number, let alone an unbound one.   JBM is a similar issue, though it's possible we could get away with a hash in this case.  Maybe JBM won't matter though.  Not yet sure if HornetQ uses a peer ID of some sort, but I'm inclined to take the same approach: if they use a name *and* the name isn't security sensitive, default to the node name, otherwise, solve later.   Otherwise, everything I'm reading in these other threads indicates that I should be able to move forward with this idea, would you agree?   P.S. I also found http://community.jboss.org/thread/90161?tstart=0 -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/529464#529464