[wildfly-dev] A write-attributes op, and dealing with complex attribute paths

[Heiko Braun]

Thanks for the clarification Brian.

> On 12 Dec 2014, at 16:08, Brian Stansberry <brian.stansberry at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 12/12/14, 2:14 AM, Heiko Braun wrote:
>> 
>> It’s hard to see the full context of this email thread, but here are two proposals I would like to comment on:
>> 
>> a) write attribute groups / or writing to attribute groups?
>> i.e :write-attribute-group(name=mygroup, value={attr1=a, attr2=b})
>> 
>> b) nested attribute syntax
>> i.e. :write-attributes(attributes=[{name=foo,value=123},{name=bar.baz.zap,value=hello}])
>> 
>> 
>> I think these are two different concerns, hence I am going to respond separately:
>> 
>> What’s the intention of proposal a)? Do you want to define new attribute groups this way or do you want to write values of attributes that belong to a specific group?
>> 
> 
> I don't propose to do a). The current proposal is this:
> 
> :write-attributes(attr1=5,attr2=true)
> 
> No relationship at all to attribute groups. The idea for it just evolved from an earlier suggestion in the thread for a).
> 
> This is simply a simpler syntax for a CLI batch that has two steps
> 
> batch
> :write-attribute(name=attr1,value=5)
> :write-attribute(name=att2,value=true)
> run-batch
> 
> The batch/run-batch is just CLI syntax for grouping in a "composite" op, so the console could take advantage of the same thing if it wishes, eliminating some composites. The "composite" op then is only needed if the steps involve > 1 address, or if some step is something other than write-attribute.
> 
>> I have similar problems with proposal b). What’s the intention behind the nested attribute syntax? A more convenient way to address complex attributes?
> 
> Yes, a more convenient way to address complex attributes.
> 
> The current proposal is not your b) though. There are two uses for nested-attribute syntax:
> 
> :write-attribute(name=bar[1].baz,value=true)
> 
> :write-attributes(attr1=5,bar[1].baz=true)
> 
> The latter is just syntactic sugar for a 2 step composite where the 2nd step is the former.
> 
> Or does this address attributes that belong to child resources?
> 
> No, not at all. The target of an operation is indicated by its address.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Brian Stansberry
> Senior Principal Software Engineer
> JBoss by Red Hat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/wildfly-dev/attachments/20141215/184a5ca8/attachment-0001.html