I think we need to keep all of those options (since they already exist).
Each of them has its advantages/disadvantages.
I agree with the proposed changes and emphasize that stacks don't have
the following properties:
- requireSso (see
I would like to hear some feedback here from Max and Snjezana.
On 02/28/2013 08:05 PM, Fred Bricon wrote:
> I mostly agree with the changes you described. Here's my 0.02€ :
> - I strongly believe runtimes should be split into different stacks
> descriptors, but I don't like the idea of having to maintain a fork of
> the JDF one. We should only add extensions (old AS'es, seam, ESB ...).
> - I believe the merge all stacks descriptors in one metamodel should be
> done in stacks client. I know Raphael kinda started working on that a
> few months back, he probably can give us his insight.
> - runtimes in stacks could list their managing JBT plugins in the
> labels property : i.e if ESB runtime can be downloaded, but no ESB
> plugin is installed, the we'd be able to discover both the runtime AND
> its associated plugin
> Le mercredi 27 février 2013 18:22:35, Rob Stryker a écrit :
>> Regarding Stacks, Runtimes, and Remote Descriptors
>> Hi All:
>> This email is to try to begin discussion on some recent duplication of
>> code and responsibilities, which should probably be fixed before
>> things get too comfortable. I'm speaking specifically about the role
>> of discovering runtimes to download, where that's done, how that's
>> done, and which responsibility belongs to who. Forgive me if the email
>> is long, as I am trying to be thorough.
>> Currently, there are three places from which runtimes to download may
>> be discovered.
>> 1) base/runtimes has an extension point named downloadRuntimes, which
>> is used by AS Tools and Seam Tools (and perhaps others).
>> 2) a remote descriptor file which acts as a second arm of 1) and is
>> basically an xml form of 1) used to dynamically add new runtimes as
>> they become available
>> 3) The new Stacks methodology, currently stored in
>> We should begin unifying these three locations into one, but the goal
>> is to do it correctly. So, I would first like to list the benefits of
>> a) downloadable runtimes provided through the extension point cannot
>> be removed without a maintenance or major release of some type, and
>> for this reason are semi-permanent
>> b) downloadable runtimes available via the remote descriptor file may
>> be added OR removed at will. This provides flexibility and
>> post-release updates are easy.
>> c) The new stacks section has a more robust model capable of providing
>> more information than the downloadable runtimes does. However, the
>> plugin requires several libraries and is currently placed in the
>> jboss-central module, where others may not make use of it.
>> d) the Stacks yaml file does not provide a place to access the file
>> size for the download, however it does provide a 'labels' section,
>> which seems extendable to add whatever properties you may want to add.
>> At first glance, it seems that Stacks is the superior framework. It is
>> extensible, it can have unlimited labels (aka properties) if desired,
>> and it already provides more information which is usable to others who
>> may want it. To make use of stacks inside Runtimes, however, we'd
>> either need to:
>> a) Expand the API in runtimes to allow other plugins (like in
>> central) to provide downloadable runtimes, or,
>> b) Push 'stacks' out of central and down into runtimes, as its own
>> plugin upon which runtimes.core and runtime.ui can depend.
>> The main negative of pushing stacks into base/runtimes, in my opinion,
>> is that there are a significant number of libraries required. It's not
>> too much, by far, but it is about 7 jars totalling about 1 megabyte.
>> Whether these jars belong in base/runtimes is debatable, and currently
>> we do not have a "3rd-party dependencies" section in base where we
>> organize common dependencies and versions together so that each plugin
>> doesn't need to bundle their own 3rd party libraries. I admit, this is
>> a debate for another time, but, I just wanted to point out that
>> pushing the stacks logic down into runtimes would be another example
>> of this issue.
>> Even still, I would argue that we should push stacks into its own
>> small plugin below runtimes, deprecate the "downloadRuntimes"
>> extension point, and the online downloadRuntime.xml (wherever the file
>> is, I forget).
>> However, once we do that, there are many more questions. The first is,
>> who's job is it to provide the yaml file from which stacks are generated?
>> Currently there is only one yaml file, and it is referenced directly
>> via a github url. Aside from how (IMO) this is fairly crazy in itself,
>> it causes another problem. The stacks client jar *can* cache the yaml
>> file and only update if the timestamp has changed, however, when
>> checking the timestamp on a github file, there isn't one...
>> This would seem to imply we should take control of the yaml file
>> ourselves and put it NOT in github but rather in a release-specific
>> online-accessible folder, ex: jbt4.1/stacks.yaml, jbt5.0/stacks.yaml,
>> The problem with this is that we are then taking control away from the
>> jdf team, and once we take the file away, it is our job to keep it
>> updated and in synch. This may cause errors if we are not very careful.
>> Assuming we do this, though, the next question is, do we add seam and
>> esb runtimes to this yaml file, which currently only provides
>> application servers? Remember, the purpose of moving stacks down would
>> be to deprecate the downloadRuntime extension point, therefore any
>> replacement would need to do everything downloadRuntime does, which
>> includes providing seam and esb runtimes for download.
>> Let's assume (for now) that we simply add lines to the yaml to allow
>> it to provide seam and esb runtimes. We may come back to this point
>> later, but for now, assume we do that.
>> Then which plugin will provide the url to our copied yaml? Who's
>> responsibility is it to point to this yaml file? Let's look at our
>> 1) The runtimes plugin references the yaml
>> 2) The central plugin references the yaml
>> Both of these fail after thinking about it. How?
>> 1) If the runtimes plugin references the yaml, then the download
>> runtimes dialog will list things (like seam) which may not be present
>> in the installation. Imagine an installation with only base and server
>> plugins installed, and so no seam or esb. A user clicking 'download
>> runtimes' will see esb and seam downloads, but the plugins which are
>> prepared to handle those runtimes after the download are not present.
>> 2) If central is in charge of providing this yaml, perhaps through a
>> new extension point to the base/runtimes/stacks plugin we add there,
>> then an installation including only plugins from base / server will
>> have a BLANK download list. Users who install only ASTools will not be
>> able to download JBoss Application Servers.
>> So both of these fail in their own way. The only solution as I can
>> see, the only way it would work, would be to have multiple such yaml
>> files, one for astools, one for seam, one for esb, etc. Each of these
>> modules would provide their own yaml url to base/runtimes/stacks via
>> an extension point in base/runtimes/stacks, and let stacks fetch each
>> one and build a unified model.
>> a) multiple urls need to be loaded
>> b) multiple yaml files need to be kept up to date, instead of just
>> one. Multiply number of contributing plugins by number of major releases
>> c) Possibility of duplicates. Once you have multiple yaml files
>> generating models, it's possible some duplication leaks in. I'm not so
>> sure about this one, but Fred listed it as a concern.
>> So, by my analysis, this is the only way I can imagine a unification
>> of these three models. I'll summarize the changes below, but it does
>> seem there would be a bit of work to do.
>> Summary of changes:
>> 1) Deprecate downloadRuntimes extension point
>> 2) Create new plugin in runtimes module called "stacks"
>> 3) Add extension point to 'stacks' plugin called stacksProvider
>> 4) modify runtime.core and runtime.ui to use the model built in
>> 5) Create a web-accessible location for jbt-release-relevent data on
>> a per-module basis. For example,
>> 6) Copy the current jdf yaml file to that location for astools.yaml
>> 7) Create a new yaml file which can build stacks for esb, seam, etc
>> 8) Ensure astools, esb, seam, etc, make use of the new stacksProvider
>> extension point
>> 9) Test the shit out of it
>> There are other benefits to this approach. Currently there's no really
>> good mapping of downloadRuntimes id's to an app-server id. This is
>> done in a hard-coded fashion in astools. This could instead be added
>> to the labels in the astools.yaml file if desired. It would allow
>> dynamic addition or removal of any runtimes, though in the yaml
>> syntax. It would minimize connections and re-downloads of the yaml
>> files, since they'll actually have a timestamp now (as opposed to in
>> github, where they don't). And it could help clean up some other areas
>> that could benefit from a cleanup.
>> I'd really like feedback on this issue from anyone who knows anything
>> about the topic, because I know for sure I'm lacking a bit in fully
>> understanding the entire api. But I'd love at the least for someone to
>> tell me which of the logic here is obviously bad or if i'm wrong on
>> any details.
>> Thanks and look forward to the feedback
>> - Rob Stryker
>> I break things, and then put them back together.
> jbosstools-dev mailing list
jbosstools-dev mailing list