Scott Stark [http://community.jboss.org/people/scott.stark%40jboss.org] replied to the discussion "domain.xml work" To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/535277#535277 -------------------------------------------------------------- Right, and my answer for 4 is too generic. JON adds a constraint in a sense to ManagedComponents based on their type/subtype. A ManagedComponent has a type(DataSource, JmsDestination, etc.) and a subtype(LocalTx, Topic, ...). They use this to define the expected properties and operations. So, the exposed ManagedComponent for these type/subtype have an implicit contract based on the rhq-plugin.xml. The domain.xml metadata is largely a pojo representation of type/subtype property structures. A FooComponent has a representation in the domain.xml if its type/subtype is one we have pulled into the domain model. The only thing we don't know is if the FooComponent instance in question exists. The DeploymentTemplate notion Emanuel brought up is simplified, property only view of a ManagedComponent that defines the minimum set of properties that need to be defined in order to create a deployment. If you are thinking of meta-metadata at admin domain and cluster levels where you define defaults for properties like pool sizes, etc., that is something I would also view as true MDR behavior we would need integrate into the implementation. This is not something we would target for implementing initially for EAP6. As we get into admin clusters and domains I can see that we will have overrides, and perhaps even new metadata that intersects with the domain.xml representations for things like HA features, DNS, networks, etc. We really have no ManagedComponents for these features anyway. -------------------------------------------------------------- Reply to this message by going to Community [http://community.jboss.org/message/535277#535277] Start a new discussion in Management Development at Community [http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&...]