Re: [wildfly-dev] Is JMX Needed in Core?

Brian Stansberry wrote: > On 7/9/14, 1:59 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote: >> The problem with that is that if you take it to its fullest extent you >> end up with one subsystem per repo, which is not something we want. >> >> I am not sure where the best place for it is, even if it stays in core >> it should be possible for the tooling to exclude it, same with logging. >> >> Otherwise I think the place for it to live would be the web distro, as I >> think that people will definitely want to be able to use JMX to manage >> that. >> > > So the web build is becoming the spot where foundational stuff like this > and Elytron come in? The core is uber-minimal for the folks who really > want that, and then web has these things that lots and lots of folks > will want. > > In the odd case where folks want this foundational stuff but not > undertow etc, they can just depend on the web build and exclude > undertow. Real corner case. And folks who don't want the foundational > stuff exclude it. > > I can see that working out pretty well. > > Does logging belong in web then then? Still seems like something that > even the uber-minimalists would want. I ask because it bugs me that we > have two meanings now for "core" -- the old "core" notion that was the > true core with zero subsystems, and now this new wildfly-core dist, > which has subsystems. I'm really not sure. TBH from a practical sense I don't think it makes any real difference, its more of an idealogical thing. I guess if we look at web as being 'all the stuff that people will probably need' then it makes sense that logging, jmx and deployment-scanner live there instead of core. Stuart > >> >> >> Fernando Nasser wrote: >>> Shouldn't it be like an onion? >>> >>> A more bare core. A Core with monitoring capabilities. And so on. >>> >>> >>> On 2014-07-09, 2:27 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote: >>>> My earlier reply on this thread was in the branch focused on the >>>> technical detail of how the dependency arises. Which should be fixed; >>>> sounds like that's happening. >>>> >>>> On the broader question of where stuff belongs, JMX is an interesting >>>> case. Lots of users will want JMX. A number of subsystems have optional >>>> dependencies on it, including some like jgroups and infinispan that may >>>> end up being part of their own dist, separate from the full dist. >>>> >>>> So what's the plan for catering to these needs? Ship it in the full dist >>>> and those who want it depend on the full dist but configure the >>>> provisioning tool to only grab the JMX modules? Make it a micro-dist? >>>> Maybe a mini-dist packaged with some others? JMX, system-jmx, pojo as >>>> the "deploy your own services" dist? (I don't like that last one, just >>>> brainstorming...) >>>> >>>> On 7/9/14, 5:47 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: >>>>> Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed in >>>>> core? >>>>> >>>>> Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is a >>>>> subsystem all must have. >>>>> >>>> Manageable logging isn't either. Lots of people used logging.properties >>>> for a long time. >>>> >>>> Note I'm not advocating removing logging from core; I'm just saying that >>>> no subsystem has to be in core if that's the criteria. >>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Darran Lofthouse. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list >>>>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> wildfly-dev mailing list >>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> wildfly-dev mailing list >> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev