[Management Development] - To scope or not to scope (domain.xml)
by Jason Greene
Jason Greene [http://community.jboss.org/people/jason.greene%40jboss.com] created the discussion
"To scope or not to scope (domain.xml)"
To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/536128#536128
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the past we talked about allowing resources to be defined, following a normal scoping mechanism, at the domain, cluster, or node level. An alternative approach would be to introduce a more limited notion of a homogenous group (1..many servers) which is the only location that things like resource definitions can occur. Creating server specific properties would require creating a new group definition. Clustering could even be viewed as a property of the homogenous group. The only issue is that some settings truly require scoping (like jvm parameters, sys properties, etc), so there would have to be special behavior there.
This would give us something like:
<domain>
<group name="Production">
<clustered-service>.....</clustered-service>
<resource name="Production DB">
....
</group>
<server name="MyServer" group="Production">
<jvm maxMemory="..." />
</server>
</domain>
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[http://community.jboss.org/message/536128#536128]
Start a new discussion in Management Development at Community
[http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&cont...]
16 years
Re: [jboss-dev-forums] [Management Development] - domain.xml work
by Brian Stansberry
Brian Stansberry [http://community.jboss.org/people/bstansberry%40jboss.com] replied to the discussion
"domain.xml work"
To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/536124#536124
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Jason Greene wrote:
>
> > Scott Stark wrote:
> >
> > I'm thinking that the profileservice ManagedComponent api is no longer relevant for our discussion. The fact that we introduced an indirection layer to allow for a stable metadata is only one part of what is needed. We need a well defined domain model that describes what the supported administration capabilities are for a given release. Now I'm thinking that the domain.xml is all that matters. Until a feature of the server has a representation in the domain.xml model, its not properly managable.
>
> I totally agree. We should focus on the requirements, use-cases and the model/configuration itself. I also agree that something has to be in domain.xml for it to be truly managable. I kind of saw runtime management of components not in domain.xml as more of a stop-gap. However, it probably is easier to just focus on the domain model, and look at the non-classified runtime stuff later, if it is even relevant anymore.
Great. I'm a lot more comfortable with this approach. Multiple different management approaches coexisting in the same management API, some of which map back to domain.xml and some not -- yuck.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[http://community.jboss.org/message/536124#536124]
Start a new discussion in Management Development at Community
[http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&cont...]
16 years