This is where I have been saying before why not build all the configs
using management ops / the CLI?
- Much easier to define config that tweaks the config that came before.
- Execute using the CLI and you even get some logic support.
- Would be compatible if in the future we release distributions that
don't use XML config persistence.
Regards,
Darran Lofthouse.
On 16/09/14 22:55, Stuart Douglas wrote:
Hi All,
so I have been giving a bit of thought to how our configuration files
are generated, and how it can work with feature packs. At the moment
feature packs just package files with a subsystem list inside, and later
feature packs configs override configs from their dependents.
I think we should move to an approach where feature packs build on the
config provided by other feature packs. So the web feature pack config
will basically express 'add these additional subsystems to
standalone.xml'. Additional config files can also be created based of
existing config, so for example standalone-full.xml would be represented
as 'like standalone.xml, but with these additional subsystems'.
Domain mode would work in a similar manner, but with profiles instead of
config files (so everything I am saying here about standalone.xml will
also apply to domain mode).
There are quite a few advantages to this approach:
- As most (all?) configs will use standalone.xml as a base, it makes it
simple to keep multiple config files in place
- It is easy for a feature pack to add a subsystem to all configurations
(e.g. installing the KeyCloak feature pack could add KeyCloak to all
configs).
- It is easy to create a new configuration that is the same as existing
configs, but with an additional subsystem.
Does this sound reasonable?
Stuart
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev