<div dir="ltr">Before a change to capabilities and requirements I think this idea of a running mode is something to consider in general.<div><br></div><div>As we talk about which modes a runtime handler is going to execute within we generally seem to be able to talk in terms of named modes - but when it comes to code within the application server we have some utility methods e.g. isNormalServer but then in other cases we have more complex boolean expressions to test the 'mode'. Sometimes it feels like we could use a better way for this test.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Darran Lofthouse.</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 at 22:26 David Lloyd <<a href="mailto:david.lloyd@redhat.com">david.lloyd@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Brian Stansberry<br>
<<a>brian.stansberry@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Something the current capabilities/requirements stuff doesn't handle is the<br>
> fact that some capabilities can be configured but won't be turned on in some<br>
> situations (i.e. admin-only). Which means other capabilities that might<br>
> require them and that are present in admin-only will pass configuration<br>
> consistency checks but will fail at runtime.<br>
><br>
> I'm not sure what to do about this. Some off the top of my head thoughts:<br>
><br>
> 1) The capability description data on wildly-capabilities includes something<br>
> about this, so people who want to require the capability understand whether<br>
> it can be required.<br>
><br>
> This is easy, and helps avoids future bugs. It's just documentation so it<br>
> does nothing about the actual server behavior.<br>
><br>
> 2) The registration for capabilities could include "minimal running-mode"<br>
> data, and then the capability resolution could check that and fail if it<br>
> finds a mismatch in the current running mode.<br>
<br>
I'm inclined towards this option. But...<br>
<br>
> This is more work obviously. It may help surface problems earlier, i.e. make<br>
> it more likely that a testsuite catches a mismatch in time to correct it<br>
> before a .Final release. It would also have the minor benefit of perhaps<br>
> providing a better error message for a user who configures a mismatch.<br>
<br>
It'd be best if we can detect this more up front if possible. If this<br>
kind of mismatch occurs, I think it would never be the user's fault.<br>
<br>
--<br>
- DML<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
wildfly-dev mailing list<br>
<a>wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a rel="noreferrer">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>