Brian Stansberry [
http://community.jboss.org/people/bstansberry%40jboss.com] commented on
the document
"Detyped Representation of the AS 7 Management Model"
To view all comments on this document, visit:
http://community.jboss.org/docs/DOC-16317#comment-5206
--------------------------------------------------
In the initial version of this article, the "type" and "value-type"
handling isn't right.
First, I don't think we should use org.jboss.dmr.ModelType for any enumerated values,
as the purpose is different. ModelType gives information to someone with a ref to a
ModelNode to let them determine the structure of the node.
A small improvement would be to make type one of an enumerated list of values:
BIG_DECIMAL, BIG_INTEGER, BOOLEAN, BYTES, DOUBLE, INT, LIST, LONG, MAP (new), PROPERTY,
STRING, or a complex structure detailing the fields and values of a non-simple-map kinds
of dmr OBJECTs. The value-type is used with LIST, MAP, PROPERTY to describe the type list
elements & map/property values, and is itself either on of the enumerated values or a
complex structure.
This breaks down, of course, if value-type is itself LIST, MAP or PROPERTY.
These type descriptions will also break down for dynamic data; e.g. the reply-properties
value for a generic operation like some generic "readAttribute" with param
"attribute-name" => "foo". The description of the return value
depends on the value of "attribute-name".
Similar issue exists with multi-step operations, where the structure of the return value
incorporates multiple values, or with domain or host level operations, where the return
value includes results from a dynamic set of hosts and servers.
--------------------------------------------------