Brian Stansberry [
http://community.jboss.org/people/bstansberry%40jboss.com] replied to
the discussion
"To scope or not to scope (domain.xml)"
To view the discussion, visit:
http://community.jboss.org/message/536361#536361
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Stark wrote:
I agree with those definitions. By the way, we need someone from the JON team to chime in
on some of these discussions to ensure we are in sync with them.
I've pinged Charles to let him know about these threads.
I don't see that a true multi-domain notion is in scope for this
effort.
Since we're in the mode of defining things, what is a "multi-domain
notion?" I see it as a an ability to manage within the same tool multiple sets of
servers where each set has it's own management policy. The sets of servers are
conceptually distinct (hence the separate management policy / domain) but, generally for
operational ease of use reasons, users wish to manage multiple domains from the same
tool.
In the base usage you are deploying to the domain, otherwise I have
to have a cluster even if I just have a collection of non-clustered servers. I would think
we do have profiles at the domain, cluster server group and server levels.
The "server-group" notion is the collection of unclustered servers. So in the
simple case of a domain that's a collection of a homogenous set of unclustered
servers, we'd just be requiring a bit more XML.
I can see having a capability to deploy to a domain as a convenience, but it can get
conceptually messy.
We need to keep a clear separation between configuration and
provisioning.
Agreed, but not sure what you were getting at here. Were we mixing them?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to this message by going to Community
[
http://community.jboss.org/message/536361#536361]
Start a new discussion in Management Development at Community
[
http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&...]