Yes, definitely. I already maintain SLP identifiers and related hokum
in "RHANANA" which is AFAIK presently internal-only (but is also the
place where we should be maintaining OIDs and other IANA stuff), but
there are definitely at least a couple of other things that I believe
can/should be centralized outside of the code base; off the top of my head:
* Deployment descriptor schemas
* (Perhaps controversially) Resource names and descriptions incl. XML
On 06/22/2015 07:46 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
Do we have other naming conventions where we could make use of a
Thinking about HTTP and SASL authentication mechanisms, these are
predominantly using IANA registered names but we do have a few exceptions.
If we ever want to be doing anything with custom LDAP schemas these can
require OID definitions.
We do also have a large number of XML schema namespaces although
probably not a good example as we have not experienced conflict here.
On 22/06/15 13:33, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> The problem is, that's not *really* central. The version of
> wildfly-core does not impact what namespaces exist or are recognized by
> subsystems. However, putting the registry in that repository means that
> certain names, which are possibly not even referenced from wildfly-core,
> become unavailable for no good reason.
> On the other hand, having a separate registry encourages add-on packages
> and other third parties to participate in registration without the
> additional coordination overhead required in creating releases for the
> change to become visible to the greater world. This becomes even more
> significant as we maintain multiple branches.
> Finally, having external name registries is standard practice for plenty
> of situations similar to this one (RFC implementations for example), for
> all the reasons I've given above.
> On 06/22/2015 06:54 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>> IMO if we add it to our source repo we should just add it to our source,
>> that would also provide a central point other subsystems can reference
>> it from.
>> Having a policy of put it in a text file in our source repo but don't
>> allow it in a shared class file seems wrong.
>> On 13/06/15 10:00, Kabir Khan wrote:
>>>> On 12 Jun 2015, at 22:31, Brian Stansberry
>>>> On 6/12/15 4:24 PM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>>>>> Sounds good to me. I'd like to add that internally, we should
>>>>> we continue to maintain some registry of our org.wildfly name spaces
>>>>> somewhere (maybe even just a git repository would be OK) so we
>>>>> conflict among ourselves.
>>>> Like a text file per capability, with some doc on the capability in the
>>>> file? Files organized in a tree from the names?
>>>> That sounds good; much better than some wiki.
>>> I don’t know enough about this yet to suggest a format, but having it
somewhere in the source is a lot better than a wiki. A wiki brings to mind that horrible
log ids page we used for AS 7.
>>>> Brian Stansberry
>>>> Senior Principal Software Engineer
>>>> JBoss by Red Hat
>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev mailing list