[Hawkular-dev] The components, glue and kettle

[Gary Brown]

Hi Micke

Its a valid point - but I don't believe the bus API is going to change that often, and therefore I think the benefits of bus integration code in the component repos outweighs the potential impact of such a change to the bus API.

Regards
Gary

----- Original Message -----
> Hi,
> 
> I disagree with the fact where the actual bus-integration component should
> reside. The components themselves should have the capabilities of allowing
> another component to connect to their internal "feeds" but the actual
> component -> bus  connector should be in the Kettle-repository. Why? The
> bus-connector is highly dependent on the actual bus implementation. If we
> would change the bus in any way in terms of implementation or API, it would
> require changes to every Hawkular component (thus, they wouldn't be
> decoupled by design) instead of only changing the implementation at the
> bus-component.
> 
>    - Micke
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Brown" <gbrown at redhat.com>
> To: "Discussions around Hawkular development" <hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:02:31 AM
> Subject: [Hawkular-dev] The components, glue and kettle
> 
> Hi
> 
> On yesterday's watercooler discussion the main topic was about how to package
> the individual components, with the "glue" code, within kettle.
> 
> There seems to be a general idea to move all bus integration code into
> Hawkular/Kettle repo. Although I agree that the kettle is the right place to
> bring together the components and glue, not sure whether the actual code for
> the glue should reside in that single repo.
> 
> My preference would be for all component related code, including that
> component's integration with the bus, to be located in that component repo -
> that way there is a clear owner of the code, and any changes to the core
> APIs are locally dealt across all integration points that may be supported.
> 
> Then the kettle repo can be responsible for selecting the relevant artifacts
> to build what it requires.
> 
> In terms of how the 'core' artifacts from each component should be enhanced
> with the glue - may be the simplest way would be as one person suggested -
> use an overlay to build upon the 'core' war artifact to add the glue
> artifacts (which in general will probably just be bus integration). So each
> component only needs to produce a single 'core' war, but also manages the
> integration artifacts locally.
> 
> I think I would prefer this approach over a single ear, as it still retains
> the individual component boundaries but enhances them with whatever they
> need to communicate in the kettle.
> 
> It would be even more ideal if jboss modules allowed exploded wars, so that
> we didn't need to use overlays, but I don't believe this is the case.
> 
> Regards
> Gary
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>