[jboss-jira] [JBoss JIRA] (WFWIP-337) Bootable JAR - Cloud - Add bindall interface, http(s) bound to bindall itf.

[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFWIP-337?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ] Martin Choma edited comment on WFWIP-337 at 9/9/20 8:38 AM: ------------------------------------------------------------ [~jdenise] Looking at resoulution of issue, but I am seeing still a lot of differences [1] 1. -I am thinking if we arent exposing to much with this change. Socket bindings http, https, management are exposed to bindall in bootable jar. This is not the case in XP1 neither bare metal. Shouldn't we align with other distributions standard configurations? - Edited: I recall now we were talking images expose it to different adresses by modules. Eg. https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-cekit-modules/blob/master/jboss/contai... and https://github.com/jboss-container-images/jboss-eap-modules/blob/master/j... 2. Also instead of general `env.HOSTNAME` shouldn't we introduce more specific env. properties e.g. env.JBOSS_BIND_ADDRESS_PRIVATE, env.JBOSS_BIND_ADDRESS ? 3. shouldn't we remove ajp from cloud scenario to be aligned with XP cloud variant? 4. Do you know what <outbound-socket-binding name="http-messaging"> in case of XP is and if we want it to be by default in bootable jar? Seems to me it could be some support for messaging in conjuction with resource adapter standalone/deployments/activemq-rar.rar but we do not provide it by default anyway. [1] !cloud-bootjar-vs-xp1.png|thumbnail! was (Author: mchoma): [~jdenise] Looking at resoulution of issue, but I am seeing still a lot of differences [1] 1. I am thinking if we arent exposing to much with this change. Socket bindings http, https, management are exposed to bindall in bootable jar. This is not the case in XP1 neither bare metal. Shouldn't we align with other distributions standard configurations? 2. Also instead of general `env.HOSTNAME` shouldn't we introduce more specific env. properties e.g. env.JBOSS_BIND_ADDRESS_PRIVATE, env.JBOSS_BIND_ADDRESS ? 3. shouldn't we remove ajp from cloud scenario to be aligned with XP cloud variant? 4. Do you know what <outbound-socket-binding name="http-messaging"> in case of XP is and if we want it to be by default in bootable jar? Seems to me it could be some support for messaging in conjuction with resource adapter standalone/deployments/activemq-rar.rar but we do not provide it by default anyway. [1] !cloud-bootjar-vs-xp1.png|thumbnail! -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008)