Re: [jboss-as7-dev] Management API Security - Part 2 ;-)

Is there a better term than "management-api"? "API" doesn't feel right. "management-interface" "management-connection" Both are somewhat overloaded, since we have "interface" elsewhere and you are proposing<management><connections> elsewhere. management-api is OK if we can't come up with a better name. Please plan on submitting a patch before M2 changing the existing schema and operation handling from<management> to<management-???>. But we don't need to add all your new<management/> stuff to the schema for M2.

(The rest below is a tangent I explored then decided against; folks should ignore the rest unless they want to avoid going down the same thought path.) Can<management-api> go inside management? I understand the logic for putting it outside (one is primarily domain.xml, the other is primarily host.xml), but if we're going to allow host-level overrides of the domain level stuff, that distinction breaks down. It also makes it easy to set up a default config that's used by all hosts. Reason to reject: doing this means a host may be unmanageable unless it can contact the master DC or is configured to boot off a "last-known-good" local copy of domain.xml. That's not acceptable. On 3/10/11 10:42 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: > Are there any comments regarding the configuration proposals here? > > Most specifically the reclaiming of the<management> element and > replacing it with the<management-apis> element? > > I would like to start getting some of this defined so will need to start > with the higher level elements first. > > Regards, > Darran Lofthouse. > > > > On 03/09/2011 01:30 PM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: >> Following on from the discussions this week please find below some >> updated articles: - >> >> This first article specified the mechanisms to be supported for the two >> transports: - >> http://community.jboss.org/docs/DOC-16587 >> >> The next article is a sample configuration to provide this: - >> http://community.jboss.org/docs/DOC-16576 >> >> DOC-16576 contains quite a bit of detail but the idea here is to provide >> (need a better word) components that either are the required callback >> handlers or components that supply the required callback handlers for >> SASL - the HTTP API will then also make use of these in the same way. >> >> Regards, >> Darran Lofthouse. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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