On 10/18/12 10:51 AM, Heiko Braun wrote:
Please see my comments inline.
On Oct 15, 2012, at 11:45 PM, Brian Stansberry
<brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com <mailto:brian.stansberry@redhat.com>> wrote:
> It would be something analogous to how a profile configuration is done:
>
> <deployment name="foo.war"...>
> <deployment-subsystem xmlns="urn:jboss:domain:osgi:1.2">
> <start-policy value="deferred"/>
> </deployment>
> </deployment>
I think this makes sense and I can see the benefit. One thing to consider:
Will this be self-describing (in terms of :read-resource-description or
something similar)?
Yes. In the branch I linked, making this fully describable was the core
purpose of the couple of commits I added on top of what Thomas had
previously done.
The use case would be to query the possible options for subsystem
specific deployment settings when actually creating a deployment (i.e.
through the console)
>
>
> 2) The structure of the resource tree. We already support resources like
> this:
>
> /deployment=foo.war/subsystem=web
>
> Subsystems register resources like those to expose metrics. The commit
> at [4] uses that same tree. When subsystems could now register child
> resources to the deployment=* resource, they could include both runtime
> stuff and configuration stuff.
>
> I'm not sure that mixing the two is ideal, although it's what we do for
> the regular subsystem resources in the profile. I'm vaguely concerned
> that if someday the configuration that subsystems choose to expose via
> this mechanism gets complex, the mixing of metrics with configuration in
> the same tree will start to break down.
I would prefer if this two concepts could somehow be distinguished.
Either a separate resource [1], or a dedicated child [2]:
[1] /deployment=foo.war/subsystem-config=web
[2] /deployment=foo.war/subsystem=web/overlay=config(start-policy=deferred)
--
Brian Stansberry
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat