4:54 a.m.
On 05/20/2015 11:42 AM, Gary Brown wrote:
----- Original Message -----
>
>
>> One issue may be patching the product - if each component has its own
>> deployment (with glue added using overlay), then if a component needs to
>> be patched, it is just a case of replacing that one module.
>
> I don't think it makes a difference, we would want to touch the smallest
> possible part because one-off patches may collide.
I guess first point to clear up is where the ear/wars would go. Based on using the nest,
my assumption was that hawkular (in whatever form) would be deployed in the modules folder
- in which case they would not be exploded, which would make patching more difficult.
However if we are going to be placing the archive(s) in standalone/deployment, then it is
not an issue. So we need to clarify which location we are talking about.
I think this is a different issue. It can be anywhere in exploded
format. I am not sure why we have "deployments" in "modules" now
that's
a topic on its own. (related to WF layering)
>> We also need to consider component reuse. If all of the
integration glue
>> code is in hawkular, then any other projects that want to reuse just one
>> component has to depend on artifacts from two repos. If all of the glue
>> code was also in component, then (as with hawkular) the other components
>> simply assemble the required components and configure as required.
>
> Which components and reuse where ?
> I think a library can be reused, or Hawkular metrics can be reused as
> standalone project. I hardly think that a component depending on the bus
> would be reused by anyone.
>
One possibility is apiman - I could see them using metrics initially but then wanting
alerts to help detect situations and notify users. I guess they would have two options,
use hawkular as a complete solution, or metrics+alerts - but then if each component had no
bus integration available, they would need to provide that glue themselves.
It's likely preferable to use metrics + alerts without the dependency on
the bus (or use the whole thing)
So maybe it comes down to whether, even though used internally, is
the bus considered to be one of the reusable components of the hawkular project?
For me it isn't.
I can hardly imagine someone willing to bring this piece in their
architecture. They may have a bus already (and then would want to
integrate with it) or prefer not to use one at all.
In the same way, I wouldn't integrate something that use some Spring
dependency injection or Google Guice when I built my solution around
CDI. (unless I really have no choice)
Thomas
Regards
Gary
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev