On 26/03/2014, at 12.03, Martin Malina <mmalina(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Hi Rob, I have a question. Now that we have more profiles for servers (JBIDE-16721) - one that prefers management operations and one that does not - what happens when you add a server using Runtime Detection? I think it will currently use the non-management option. In the past, you could change the server settings later to use management. But you say that increasingly there will be differences between the two that can’t be changed afterwards - one example is the deployment tab in the server editor. So perhaps we should consider which one should be used for runtime detection in the future. Or even better perhaps to offer both options for runtime detection? What do you think about this? Thanks, Martin -- Martin Malina JBoss QA Engineer Red Hat Czech s.r.o. Purkynova 99 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic Tel.: +420 532 294 265 _______________________________________________ jbosstools-dev mailing list jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

Why not provide both options?

-- Len ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; | To: "Martin Malina" <mmalina(a)redhat.com&gt; | Cc: "Rob Stryker" <rstryker(a)redhat.com&gt;, &quot;jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org | jbosstools-dev" <jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; | Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:32:36 AM | Subject: Re: [jbosstools-dev] New server profiles vs. Runtime Detection | I noticed this discrepancy too. Agree need to figure this workflow out. | /max (sent from my phone) | On 26/03/2014, at 12.03, Martin Malina < mmalina(a)redhat.com > wrote: | | Hi Rob, | | | I have a question. Now that we have more profiles for servers ( JBIDE-16721 | | ) | | - one that prefers management operations and one that does not - what | | happens when you add a server using Runtime Detection? I think it will | | currently use the non-management option. In the past, you could change the | | server settings later to use management. But you say that increasingly | | there | | will be differences between the two that can’t be changed afterwards - one | | example is the deployment tab in the server editor. | | | So perhaps we should consider which one should be used for runtime | | detection | | in the future. Or even better perhaps to offer both options for runtime | | detection? | | | What do you think about this? | | | Thanks, | | | Martin | | | -- | | | Martin Malina | | | JBoss QA Engineer | | | Red Hat Czech s.r.o. | | | Purkynova 99 | | | 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic | | | Tel.: +420 532 294 265 | | | _______________________________________________ | | | jbosstools-dev mailing list | | | jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org | | | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev | | _______________________________________________ | jbosstools-dev mailing list | jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev -- Len DiMaggio (ldimaggi(a)redhat.com) JBoss by Red Hat 314 Littleton Road Westford, MA 01886 USA tel: 978.392.3179 cell: 781.472.9912 http://www.redhat.com http://community.jboss.org/people/ldimaggio

On 26. 3. 2014, at 18:56, Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse(a)redhat.com <mailto:manderse@redhat.com>> wrote: > On 26 Mar 2014, at 17:37, Len DiMaggio wrote: > >> Why not provide both options? > > which two options are you referring to ? I think Len refers to this snippet from my email: "So perhaps we should consider which one should be used for runtime detection in the future. Or even better perhaps to offer both options for runtime detection?" So once runtime detection finds the servers, you could choose which mode to use before clicking OK to add them. But I’m not sure if there’s a way to do it and avoid confusion for the user. -Martin > I think the idea about locking the servers deployment mode > is too strict in context runtime detection. > > We need some way to change these - either allow same flexibility as > before or have a "Recreate this server using same basic info but in > Profile X" instead. > > /max > >> >> -- Len >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> | From: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <manderse(a)redhat.com >> <mailto:manderse@redhat.com>> >> | To: "Martin Malina" <mmalina(a)redhat.com <mailto:mmalina@redhat.com>> >> | Cc: "Rob Stryker" <rstryker(a)redhat.com >> <mailto:rstryker@redhat.com>>, &quot;jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> <mailto:jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org> >> | jbosstools-dev" <jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> <mailto:jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org>> >> | Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:32:36 AM >> | Subject: Re: [jbosstools-dev] New server profiles vs. Runtime >> Detection >> >> | I noticed this discrepancy too. Agree need to figure this workflow >> out. >> >> | /max (sent from my phone) >> >> | On 26/03/2014, at 12.03, Martin Malina <mmalina(a)redhat.com >> <mailto:mmalina@redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> | | Hi Rob, >> | >> >> | | I have a question. Now that we have more profiles for servers ( >> JBIDE-16721 >> | | ) >> | | - one that prefers management operations and one that does not - >> what >> | | happens when you add a server using Runtime Detection? I think >> it will >> | | currently use the non-management option. In the past, you could >> change the >> | | server settings later to use management. But you say that >> increasingly >> | | there >> | | will be differences between the two that can’t be changed >> afterwards - one >> | | example is the deployment tab in the server editor. >> | >> | | So perhaps we should consider which one should be used for runtime >> | | detection >> | | in the future. Or even better perhaps to offer both options for >> runtime >> | | detection? >> | >> | | What do you think about this? >> | >> >> | | Thanks, >> | >> | | Martin >> | >> >> | | -- >> | >> | | Martin Malina >> | >> | | JBoss QA Engineer >> | >> | | Red Hat Czech s.r.o. >> | >> | | Purkynova 99 >> | >> | | 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic >> | >> >> | | Tel.: +420 532 294 265 >> | >> >> | | _______________________________________________ >> | >> | | jbosstools-dev mailing list >> | >> | |jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> <mailto:jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org> >> | >> | | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >> | >> >> | _______________________________________________ >> | jbosstools-dev mailing list >> | jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org> >> | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >> -- >> >> Len DiMaggio (ldimaggi(a)redhat.com <mailto:ldimaggi@redhat.com>) >> JBoss by Red Hat >> 314 Littleton Road >> Westford, MA 01886 USA >> tel: 978.392.3179 >> cell: 781.472.9912 >> http://www.redhat.com >> http://community.jboss.org/people/ldimaggio > > > /max > http://about.me/maxandersen -- Martin Malina JBoss QA Engineer Red Hat Czech s.r.o. Purkynova 99 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic Tel.: +420 532 294 265

Rob, I wasn’t talking about runtime download at all. I’m talking about runtime detection on a folder containing existing servers. Your suggestion could apply there, too. But it doesn’t scale - what if I have 5 different servers in the searched directory. Would I then get 5 new server (simplified) wizards opened?

-Martin On 26. 3. 2014, at 20:08, Rob Stryker <rstryker(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > I think the proper workflow here is to simply open the new server > wizard and let the user fill out their choices. There's no point in > duplicating that workflow. > > Currently it downloads in the background, and, when the download is > complete, unzips it, makes a runtime out of that folder, and then > makes a server out of it. It probably should unzip it, make a new > runtime out of that folder, and then open a new server wizard with > fewer pages (server type already chosen, so we don't need that first > page). > > Runtimes have remained the same and have not changed. Only servers > have. > > But yes, will need to investigate how to do it cleanly. > > On 03/27/2014 02:00 AM, Martin Malina wrote: >> >> On 26. 3. 2014, at 18:56, Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> On 26 Mar 2014, at 17:37, Len DiMaggio wrote: >>> >>>> Why not provide both options? >>> >>> which two options are you referring to ? >> >> I think Len refers to this snippet from my email: >> "So perhaps we should consider which one should be used for runtime >> detection in the future. Or even better perhaps to offer both >> options for runtime detection?" >> >> So once runtime detection finds the servers, you could choose which >> mode to use before clicking OK to add them. But I’m not sure if >> there’s a way to do it and avoid confusion for the user. >> >> -Martin >> >>> I think the idea about locking the servers deployment mode >>> is too strict in context runtime detection. >>> >>> We need some way to change these - either allow same flexibility as >>> before or have a "Recreate this server using same basic info but in >>> Profile X" instead. >>> >>> /max >>> >>>> >>>> -- Len >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>> | From: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> | To: "Martin Malina" <mmalina(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> | Cc: "Rob Stryker" <rstryker(a)redhat.com&gt;, >>>> &quot;jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> | jbosstools-dev" <jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; >>>> | Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:32:36 AM >>>> | Subject: Re: [jbosstools-dev] New server profiles vs. Runtime >>>> Detection >>>> >>>> | I noticed this discrepancy too. Agree need to figure this >>>> workflow out. >>>> >>>> | /max (sent from my phone) >>>> >>>> | On 26/03/2014, at 12.03, Martin Malina < mmalina(a)redhat.com > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> | | Hi Rob, >>>> | >>>> >>>> | | I have a question. Now that we have more profiles for servers >>>> ( JBIDE-16721 >>>> | | ) >>>> | | - one that prefers management operations and one that does not >>>> - what >>>> | | happens when you add a server using Runtime Detection? I think >>>> it will >>>> | | currently use the non-management option. In the past, you >>>> could change the >>>> | | server settings later to use management. But you say that >>>> increasingly >>>> | | there >>>> | | will be differences between the two that can’t be changed >>>> afterwards - one >>>> | | example is the deployment tab in the server editor. >>>> | >>>> | | So perhaps we should consider which one should be used for >>>> runtime >>>> | | detection >>>> | | in the future. Or even better perhaps to offer both options >>>> for runtime >>>> | | detection? >>>> | >>>> | | What do you think about this? >>>> | >>>> >>>> | | Thanks, >>>> | >>>> | | Martin >>>> | >>>> >>>> | | -- >>>> | >>>> | | Martin Malina >>>> | >>>> | | JBoss QA Engineer >>>> | >>>> | | Red Hat Czech s.r.o. >>>> | >>>> | | Purkynova 99 >>>> | >>>> | | 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic >>>> | >>>> >>>> | | Tel.: +420 532 294 265 >>>> | >>>> >>>> | | _______________________________________________ >>>> | >>>> | | jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>> | >>>> | | jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> | >>>> | | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>> | >>>> >>>> | _______________________________________________ >>>> | jbosstools-dev mailing list >>>> | jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> | https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Len DiMaggio (ldimaggi(a)redhat.com) >>>> JBoss by Red Hat >>>> 314 Littleton Road >>>> Westford, MA 01886 USA >>>> tel: 978.392.3179 >>>> cell: 781.472.9912 >>>> http://www.redhat.com >>>> http://community.jboss.org/people/ldimaggio >>> >>> >>> /max >>> http://about.me/maxandersen >> >> -- >> Martin Malina >> JBoss QA Engineer >> Red Hat Czech s.r.o. >> Purkynova 99 >> 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic >> >> Tel.: +420 532 294 265 >> >> >> >> > -- Martin Malina JBoss QA Engineer Red Hat Czech s.r.o. Purkynova 99 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic Tel.: +420 532 294 265