I'm not sure how the ServiceLoader part would work there. At least not
with what I imagine when I think of an "alias." With some kind of stub
where each has a different
META-INF/services/org.jboss.as.controller.Extension file it could work.

On 3/1/13 2:29 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> Yeah, I was thinking they could just be aliases or stubs though.
>
> On 03/01/2013 02:22 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>> In terms of code organization, perhaps. But the way the extension is
>> activated in the HCs and servers is via the module name. So if you want
>> a 7.2 server to be able to run CMP, there is going to have to be a
>> module named org.jboss.as.cmp.
>>
>> On 3/1/13 2:13 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>> I wonder - should we retain a skeletal version of each of these modules?
>>>      I was thinking maybe it would be better to maintain one big
>>> "removed-subsystems" or "compat-subsystems" module or something like
>>> that where we can neatly/consistently organize all the model stuff for
>>> these removals.
>>>
>>> On 03/01/2013 09:39 AM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>>>> Thanks Thomas, for raising this and for the JIRA.
>>>>
>>>> I've outlined what I think is needed for the stub extensions as a
>>>> comment on https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-6656 .
>>>>
>>>> Can I request that folks hold up on deleting these subsystems? I think
>>>> it will be easier to make these changes and then delete the unneeded
>>>> runtime stuff than it will be to semi-restore from history and then change.
>>>>
>>>> The ones that have already been deleted, it's no big deal.
>>>>
>>>> On 2/28/13 10:35 AM, Thomas Diesler wrote:
>>>>> Ok, stub extensions is the obvious alternative to breaking compatibility. I'll leave this as a future task and create a jira for it if that's ok with you.
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> --thomas
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 4:22 PM, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/28/2013 05:57 AM, Thomas Diesler wrote:
>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> related to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * [AS7-6612 <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-6612>] Remove JAXR support
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to know whether we need to preserve backward compatibility of
>>>>>>> the configuration and if so what should happen if there is a jaxr config
>>>>>>> item? Generally, can AS8 break backward compatibility with respect to
>>>>>>> the config?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brian points out that we don't have a specific requirement to maintain
>>>>>> compatibility with obsolete subsystems.  I think we could go ahead with
>>>>>> the removal (granted part of the reason I feel this way is that I've
>>>>>> already removed JSR-88...).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Going forward though Kabir suggested that if we do want to, say, allow
>>>>>> 7.x instances to be managed from an 8.x DC, that we should create "stub"
>>>>>> extensions for the removed stuff that only carry and validate
>>>>>> configuration but aren't actually supported on 8.x servers.  This seems
>>>>>> like a valid possibility to me.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> - DML
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>>>>> jboss-as7-dev@lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Thomas Diesler
>>>>> JBoss OSGi Lead
>>>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>>>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>>>> jboss-as7-dev@lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


--

Brian Stansberry
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat

_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
jboss-as7-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev