Right. Those "name" attributes appeared in the first few months of the
project before we thought better of it. They only still exist because
they made it into a release.
Why do you want a "key" attribute? The address is the key.
On 10/22/12 7:25 AM, Emanuel Muckenhuber wrote:
Yes, this approach is inconsistent and afaik those attributes are only
still there for backwards compatibility.
On 10/22/2012 11:59 AM, Heiko Braun wrote:
>
>
> Some resource reflect their "key”, using a "name" attribute. For
instance:
>
>
> /host=master/server-config=<key>:read-resource
>
> {
> name=key;
> [...]
> }
>
>
> But this approach is not consistently used across the model. To further automate the
integration of tools like the web console, it would be helpful to provide consistent
access to the resource key. I can see two possible approaches:
>
> a) predefined attribute name like "key":
> - does introduce a list system attribute names that cannot be used by resources
> - the benefit: it would simply show up as regular attributes
>
> b) an alternate place for meta data like "key":
> - easily extensible
> - no naming conflicts
> - but requires dedicated access to system attributes
>
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Regards, Ike
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>
_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
--
Brian Stansberry
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat