Hi everybody.

My first suggestion should be to use downloadUrl attribute but given that it's a workflowUrl I'm ok to create a label called downloadManagerUrl. We can't add an attribute without change the version (it breaks stacks-client).

I also liked to use a short version downloadManagerPath=jboss-eap-6.0.0.dv.ci-installer.jar. But it lead me to think If we can do something like:


This way we can continue to use the existing *downloadUrl attribute* but also emphasizes that this use uses a custom "protocol" that is handled by the downloadManager

This is my 2 cents.

Em 21/02/14 05:24, Rob Stryker escreveu:
Rafael (and others):

So I spent an hour or so yesterday chatting with David Hladky about the new download manager rest services which JBosstools intends to use to help us download EAP 6.x. It allows for a workflow that can help us get terms and conditions, verify credentials, verify agreements have been signed, and then provide a download utility with a temporary url that expires to download the EAP.

The api and the test server I played with look good so far. JBossTools, though, pulls all of its runtime information from jdf-stacks. We typically pull our download urls from there.

Currently in stacks, community editions have a "url" for the project page, and a "downloadUrl" for a link to a permanent url for the given runtime to download.

EAP instances in stacks.yaml only have a url for a project page. When the download manager written by David goes live, we'll need to consider what to do for stacks.yaml, and I'd prefer to get this stuff sorted now.

I'd like to suggest that we add a new attribute "downloadManagerUrl".  This will ensure clients know that this is a workflow url and not a static url for downloading a file.

There's 2 parts to the rest service written by David. First is the rest service url itself, and the second is the file we're requesting. Currently a url for one part of the rest workflow (in this example, to get terms and conditions) looks like this:


You can see the two parts are the rest service url (on test server, https://www-eng.jboss.org/download-manager/rest/tc)  and the second part is what we're requesting (in this case, /content/origin/files/sha256/42/42a9766b4914af02350a39612eb587170e7bf079143cc70886c9cf33022b433c/jboss-eap-6.0.0.dv.ci-installer.jar)

I see a few problems here. The first is that, in my opinion, those urls are pretty long to be including in stacks.yaml... but luckily the download-manager allows for shortened urls, so we could have the download-manager server respond to a url like ${server-root}/rest/tc?downloadURL=jboss-eap-6.0.0.dv.ci-installer.jar. The download manager would then map the attribute to the /content/blah/blah/sha path and proceed accordingly. So this is easily fixed.

The second, is that the rest services do not point to the next url to request. For example, if I go to the tc-accepted rest service to see if the terms and conditions were accepted yet, it does not point me to the next url in the workflow. Because of this, there's really no single entry-point in the workflow, and each rest service url is kind of a standalone url.

With the second point in mind, we might just want our stacks.yaml attribute to say downloadManagerPath=jboss-eap-6.0.0.dv.ci-installer.jar.

The client (in this case jbosstools) would pass that string to the download manager rest service it chooses to use. The download-manager server would resolve jboss-eap-6.0.0.dv.ci-installer.jar to its more specific /content/sha256/23423823423/etc  path, and proceed normally.

One concern with this approach is that the stacks.yaml will never include the actual url of the rest service entry point. Even if we wanted to have stacks.yaml point to the entry point, there's no one entry-point since the rest services do not point to the next step in the workflow.

I personally have no problem using the service as it's written now, and with stacks.yaml only having a shortened path available, but I wanted to get your (and others) feedback on the situation before this gets pushed to production, after which we probably won't have much chance to change it.

Any thoughts?

- Rob Stryker