Brian Stansberry wrote: > 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.