see this comment (the last part of it) that mentions a somewhat similar dynamic concept
http://talk.manageiq.org/t/rethinking-providers-and- managers/2494/11
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Heiko Rupp <hrupp@redhat.com> wrote:Now that Caina is doing a PoC I want to revisit the
source of metadata question again.
On 30 May 2017, at 23:11, Jay Shaughnessy wrote:
> changes to MIQ. As Mazz said, it's a throwback to RHQ where
> persistence and UI was generically implemented. The
This is to quickly get a 70% version out and to be able to
quickly add new monitored stuff. This should and will not
prevent us from generating more dedicated UI screens later.
> * the UI config may need more presentation-only info, I'm not sure
Yes
> * the UI config wouldn't necessarily need everything in the agent
> config
> * it maintains our current decentralized approach to agent config
This one I am no longer sure about. It was a great idea
back in the day. I see two cases
* user uses the same config for all WildFlys - why do we
want to duplicate the metadata for all of those if
the (RT) config is effectively the same?
* user has modified the agent config to have
more/less fields. In this case the current MiQ UI would
not adapt to it and in either way just not show the
data. And it may not even be clear when there are
two WildFly in inventory with different configs, why they
don't show this difference
For WildFly in container it may even be less interesting
with the current approach as here all the WildFlys will be
built on one base image (that we supply with a baked in
config?).
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev