[Hawkular-dev] The components, glue and kettle

[Thomas Heute]

+1

On 05/13/2015 11:53 AM, Michael Burman wrote:
> 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
>