JBoss development, A new message was posted in the thread "Partition and Node identities": http://community.jboss.org/message/529392#529392 Author : Brian Stansberry Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/bstansberry@jboss.com Message: -------------------------------------------------------------- I was out yesterday; sorry for slow reploy.   100% agree we need a unique name for nodes, and the -b value isn't a good default, at least not if -b is 0.0.0.0.  I'll dig up a link to an earlier thread about this general topic that kind of died out. This touches on lots of areas, so I suspect this discussion will end up moving to the jboss-development list.   I don't think it's the end of the world if people have to actually specify the name if they want to run two instances on the same machine both bound to 0.0.0.0. They'd have to set -Djboss.service.binding.set=xxxx and -Djboss.messaging.ServerPeerID=y on at least one node anyway, so it's not like their startup command was totally trivial and now they are forced to add complexity.   I think when we move to a proper domain model we should require each server instance in the configuration to have a name. For that reason also, I don't think driving people in some cases to actually configure the name is the end of the world. Actually, that's the one thing that concerns me in your proposal for determining the name, which otherwise sounds fine: it introduces 3 system properties. If in a future domain configuration people are just required to do something like:   <server name=AS1...   then for AS 6 we've probably introduced 2 configuration system properties that will disappear in AS 7? -------------------------------------------------------------- To reply to this message visit the message page: http://community.jboss.org/message/529392#529392