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(a)redhat.com>
To: "Discussions around Hawkular development"
<hawkular-dev(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev