I've been thinking about the UX considerations over the last week. Generally there
seem to be 3 basic situations involved.
1) There can be expressions in the result and the CLI can, in some manner, successfully
resolve those expressions. This is dependent on the context that the command/operation is
executed in, domain/standalone mode and the location in the configuration tree, but seems
2) There can be expressions in the result and the CLI can't resolve those expressions.
For example if they're looking at a domain profile there's nothing to resolve
3) There won't be expressions in the result. There are lots of places in the CLI that
would never return an expression. Which means the user would never need the
I think it's ok to hide the argument/param in situation 3. If expressions won't
show up in the results there's no reason to have an option to resolve them really. It
seems confusing to include it here.
The main question is what to do in situation 2, where there will be expressions in a
result but it's impossible to resolve. Hiding the argument there seems like it could
be confusing for people. They'll see an expression and if they know the argument is
available elsewhere they'll wonder why they can't use it here. Frustration ensues.
I think it would be better to have some type of error message explaining, somehow, that
their location within the configuration tree doesn't allow for expressions to be
resolved. I'm not sure what it should say though or how many of these situations
exist. Any suggestions?
The other question is whether there are situations where 1 and 2 actually overlap. Where
some expressions are resolvable, but others are not. I haven't been able to figure out
if that's an actual problem yet.
I'm going to implement the ability to hide the argument for the 'ls' command
this week, which Alexey pointed me towards on Friday, and look into how to add a param to
the server-side operations. Once I have both working successfully I'll try to create a
comprehensive list of all the applicable situations I can figure out. No sense in doing
that before I can get it actually working for both the CLI commands and server-side
----- Original Message -----
On 06/27/2014 04:45 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> On 6/27/14, 8:27 AM, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
>> On 06/26/2014 05:31 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>>> Thanks, Joe, for looking into this.
>>> I'm curious what you've done so far with your 'ls
>>> work. Did you use the existing
>>> ':resolve-expression(expression=___)' low
>>> level operation to process any expressions found in the
>>> There are a few aspects of this I'd like to explore.
>>> One is the UX one. Is allowing 'resolve-expressions' in some
>>> and not others a good UX? Will users understand that? I'm
>>> about that, and am interested in others' opinions.
>>> If it can work for a server and for anything under /host=*, then
>>> ambivalent. Any restriction at all is unintuitive, but once the
>>> learns that there is a restriction, that's a pretty
>>> understandable one.
>>> If it only works for a patchwork of stuff under /host=* then I'm
>>> negative about it. An area of concern is /host=*/server-config=*,
>>> an expression might be irrelevant to the host, only resolving
>>> on the server that is created using that server-config. That will
>>> careful examination.
>>> A second one is how this data would be displayed with 'ls'. A
>>> additional column? Or replacing the current data? The answer to
>>> might impact how it would be implemented server side.
>> Keep in mind that ls is an example. There are other commands that
>> have to support this feature once it's implemented in one place.
>> example is read-attribute command. The ability to resolve
>> elsewhere will be a natural expectation then.
>> So, it has to be thought of as a general features that can be
>> applied to
>> various cli commands.
> Good point. Joe, we'd need a clear understanding of all the
> that would be affected.
At this point, it's ls, read-attribute and commands handled by
GenericTypeOperationHandler (which means [xa-]data-source, jms-topic,
-queue, -connection-factory, etc).
The generic handler includes action read-resource (e.g. w/o other
optional arguments 'data-source read-resource --name=ExampleDS'),
is basically a formatted result of :read-resource.
In general, it could be applied to any command displaying an
value to the user.
>> IMO, the values returned should just be replaced with the resolved
>> for display. Some commands support --verbose argument, in which
>> additional info is displayed in columns, there we could include
>> original value.
>> The output of the cli commands in some cases is parsed by scripts
>> other code, so keeping it simple will help there too.
>>> The third aspect is the technical issue of how to make any
>>> 'resolve-expressions' param or CLI argument available in certain
>>> contexts and not in others. That's very likely solvable on the
>>> side; not sure how difficult it would be in the CLI high-level
>> Current tab-completion supports dependencies of command arguments
>> their values on the current context (connection to the controller,
>> standalone/domain mode, the presence of other arguments on the
>> line and
>> the values specified for them, etc). Technically, there shouldn't
>> be an
> Ok, good.
>> I am more concerned about how intuitive that will look like for
>> the user
>> in various contexts.
> Yes, I think the UX aspects are the more significant ones.
>>> FYI, for others reading this, offline Joe pointed out there's a
>>> JIRA for this: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-1069
>>> On 6/26/14, 5:41 AM, Edward Wertz wrote:
>>>> I'm looking into whether it's possible to automatically resolve
>>>> expressions when executing operations and commands in the CLI.
>>>> >From my understanding, there are two variations of the problem.
>>>> * Operations are server-side processes that are accessed
>>>> via ':' in the CLI and, currently, the CLI presents the
>>>> results returned as-is to the users. ex: ':read-resource'
>>>> * Commands are processes that get manipulated by the CLI
>>>> before getting presented to users. ex: 'ls'
>>>> I've been experimenting with adding arguments to the CLI
>>>> commands, like 'ls --resolve-expressions', and gotten it
>>>> working for the standalone and domain side of things. However,
>>>> I can't control the scope of the argument, so it's available in
>>>> situations that cannot accurately resolve expressions like the
>>>> 'profile=full' section of the domain tree. The results
>>>> be reliable.
>>>> The same problem would apply to adding parameters to the
>>>> server-side operations. The scope of the operations themselves
>>>> can be controlled, but not their parameters. An execution like
>>>> ':read-resource(recursive=true resolve-expressions=true)'
>>>> resolve expressions unless it's used against an actual server
>>>> or host, but the operation is available almost everywhere.
>>>> Again, the results wouldn't be reliable.
>>>> I'm wondering if anyone can suggest a way to attack this
>>>> problem? There is already a
>>>> ':resolve-expression(expression=___)' operation, so users can
>>>> somewhat laboriously get the runtime values they want, but I
>>>> can't figure out a way to integrate the values into the
>>>> existing framework successfully. Other than creating entirely
>>>> new operations and commands, like 'ls-resolve' and
>>>> ':read-resource-resolve', which seems like an unsustainable way
>>>> to solve the problem.
>>>> Joe Wertz
>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev mailing list