Brian Stansberry [
http://community.jboss.org/people/bstansberry%40jboss.com] created the
discussion
"Re: How to model the (optional) OSGi webconsole in AS7"
To view the discussion, visit:
http://community.jboss.org/message/572839#572839
--------------------------------------------------------------
Good point.
There's an easy answer to that, which is that an installer is part of community AS and
not part of the product. That's not very satisfying though. And I know Rich Sharples
is interested in an installer-like capability, although in a quick scan I didn't
that in any formal requirements doc. In the June discussions we had with Rich where we
brainstormed a bit in that we didn't think about the QE implications though.
Another question is what does an installer really mean in terms of added QE and support
burden. It's basically a tool for configuring the AS. So is the shell and a text
editor; i.e. users have always been able to alter the AS "profile" and make it
run a configuration that's not part of our formal test plan. So an installer
doesn't add anything new there. What does seem new:
1) If we make it completely trivial to run a particular profile (e.g. we ship a
domain-messaging.xml with a nothing-but-messaging profile, or include in an installer a
single checkbox to create such a canned profile) then users could expect that we've
quite thoroughly QE'd that particular profile.
2) Users might expect that the installer would only allow valid, bootable combinations;
i.e. if subsystem X requires subsystem Y and socket-binding A, then a profile can't be
created that doesn't include X, Y and A. Confirming the installer enforces that would
be a QE burden.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[
http://community.jboss.org/message/572839#572839]
Start a new discussion in JBoss AS7 Development at Community
[
http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&...]