The deployment terms are really messed up in the CLI. I.e. the command is named "deploy <foo.bar>", but at the same time an operation exists on the deployment to "deploy" (aka enable) it: [domain@localhost:9999 /] deploy ~/Desktop/test-application.war --all-server-groups [domain@localhost:9999 /] /server-group=main-server-group/deployment=test-application.war:deploy I would suggest we align these terms with WIKI page: http://community.jboss.org/wiki/AS7DeploymentTerms This would mean to rename the command to "upload" and the operation to "enable". Whatever we chose, we need to remove the ambiguity. Ike _______________________________________________ jboss-as7-dev mailing list jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev

I wouldn't mind if the command stays the way it is. But then the operation name on a deployment needs to be changed. For instance to :enable and :disable opposed to :deploy, because that already taken by the command name. It would make sense, because the deployment carries and attribute name "enabled" already. If just look at the CLI on it's it makes perfect sense they way you build it. But if regards the operation, the CLI commands, and the model description you will realize that all three diverged at some point and rely on their own specific terms. Ike On Jun 22, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Alexey Loubyansky wrote: > Just re-naming the current deploy command to upload doesn't sound nice > to me. > Because the command actually deploys the package (unless you add > --disabled). So, it's as clear as it can be. > > Renaming just to match an operation name doesn't justify it for me in > this case. It may also do a full-replace if --force is specified, btw. > > So, if we were to re-name the command we would have to review the > arguments too. > Would 'upload' enable by default? Or it would only if --enable is > specified (with server groups in the domain mode)? > Should enable be a separate command? Which would accept server groups, > etc? This would mean two commands instead of one to actually deploy an app. > > What would "undeploy" be renamed to? "remove" seems to be too general. > unload? remove-deployment? > > Alexey _______________________________________________ jboss-as7-dev mailing list jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev

On 06/22/2011 01:47 PM, Heiko Braun wrote: > > > I wouldn't mind if the command stays the way it is. > But then the operation name on a deployment needs to be changed. > For instance to :enable and :disable opposed to :deploy, because that already > taken by the command name. > > It would make sense, because the deployment carries and attribute name "enabled" already. This makes sense. And probably will be consistent with other things. E.g. data sources chose enable/disable as names.

> If just look at the CLI on it's it makes perfect sense they way you build it. > But if regards the operation, the CLI commands, and the model description > you will realize that all three diverged at some point and rely on their own specific terms. Agreed, they should be aligned where possible. Although there will still be some differences, since higher level commands might translate into different operations (including composite) depending on the conditions and arguments. The new approach to commands I am working on right now will help with this. Alexey > > Ike > > > On Jun 22, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Alexey Loubyansky wrote: > >> Just re-naming the current deploy command to upload doesn't sound nice >> to me. >> Because the command actually deploys the package (unless you add >> --disabled). So, it's as clear as it can be. >> >> Renaming just to match an operation name doesn't justify it for me in >> this case. It may also do a full-replace if --force is specified, btw. >> >> So, if we were to re-name the command we would have to review the >> arguments too. >> Would 'upload' enable by default? Or it would only if --enable is >> specified (with server groups in the domain mode)? >> Should enable be a separate command? Which would accept server groups, >> etc? This would mean two commands instead of one to actually deploy an app. >> >> What would "undeploy" be renamed to? "remove" seems to be too general. >> unload? remove-deployment? >> >> Alexey > _______________________________________________ jboss-as7-dev mailing list jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev

Quoting Alexey Loubyansky&lt;alexey.loubyansky(a)redhat.com&gt;: > > So, if we were to re-name the command we would have to review the > arguments too. > Would 'upload' enable by default? Or it would only if --enable is > specified (with server groups in the domain mode)? I think it should not enable by default. Enable-by-default is convenient for development, but in production you want to be careful about when something goes live. > Should enable be a separate command? Which would accept server groups, > etc? This would mean two commands instead of one to actually deploy an app. I'd say have both. Enable/Disable commands would be convenient. I'm thinking especially when you want to upload, set up some other things like datasources, then enable.

> What would "undeploy" be renamed to? "remove" seems to be too general. > unload? remove-deployment? remove-deployment sounds good.

Quoting Alexey Loubyansky&lt;alexey.loubyansky(a)redhat.com&gt;: > On 06/22/2011 03:19 PM, ssilvert(a)redhat.com wrote: >> Quoting Alexey Loubyansky&lt;alexey.loubyansky(a)redhat.com&gt;: >>> >>> So, if we were to re-name the command we would have to review the >>> arguments too. >>> Would 'upload' enable by default? Or it would only if --enable is >>> specified (with server groups in the domain mode)? >> >> I think it should not enable by default. Enable-by-default is >> convenient for development, but in production you want to be careful >> about when something goes live. >> >>> Should enable be a separate command? Which would accept server groups, >>> etc? This would mean two commands instead of one to actually deploy an app. >> >> I'd say have both. Enable/Disable commands would be convenient. I'm >> thinking especially when you want to upload, set up some other things >> like datasources, then enable. > > Following what I'm doing now I might end up with > > deployment add file_path > deployment deployment_name deploy > deployment deployment_name undeploy I like it. > >>> What would "undeploy" be renamed to? "remove" seems to be too general. >>> unload? remove-deployment? >> >> remove-deployment sounds good. > > Why not then add-deployment instead of upload? Or to be consistent with what you have above: deployment deployment_name remove deployment deployment_name server_group assign deployment deployment_name server_group unassign > > Thanks, > Alexey > _______________________________________________ > 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