On Nov 11, 2011, at 15:40, Jason T. Greene wrote:
On 11/11/11 4:48 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
> …but now i'm truly happy we got Filesystem deployment "api" so I can
actually work without
> users setting these things up - or will that also be disabled by default ?
You keep saying this, but doesn't this feel a little bit ironic to you? I mean you
were constantly demanding a management API, and now that we have one you can't stop
looking for ways not to use it.
I never demanded a management api that couldn't be used for incremental deployments -
I also never wanted one for deployments if it required full access to a running server.
I did demand a File API so I knew I could actually interact with a local server no matter
if it is running or not and from *any* tool that already exist with or without management
api available.
The thing we like management API for is to check server is running, graceful shutdown and
to query for status of things.
Doing simple things like deploying app, datasource and queues should be doable without a
lot of overhead.
It's great the management API can do it but with it now being default secured even for
127.0.0.1/localhost its not the first thing I would use.
Note, we will make this easy to use, but for the cases of server not running during
deployment (local setup, preparation of a server, you don't want to have it running
etc.) or the management
API not being available (OpenShift and others and just plain remote server which only
exposes SSH/SCP) there the File API is tremendously useful.
And its much more universal.
/max
http://about.me/maxandersen