Re: [wildfly-dev] Should management interfaces be in a subsystem?

Thanks Brian, So this does sound like I should go ahead and bump the schema and management versions so I can continue with my tasks and I will send in a PR as soon as we move to 2.0.x development. Enhancements to the interface definitions can continue along that path until we feel ready to move them. Regards, Darran Lofthouse. On 17/04/15 15:26, Brian Stansberry wrote: > Long term answer: > > Yes, I think they should be in a subsystem. > > Short term answer: > > That will be a lot of work, particularly in regards to providing the > necessary compatibility and, possibly, migration support. So I think we > need to get further along on our list of must have stuff before we > attack this problem in a lot of depth. If we can get to it, great. > > I believe the capabilities and requirements stuff should clean up a lot > of the issues around kernel stuff needing things provided by by > subsystems. The distinction should disappear, and it all becomes just > things providing capabilities and other things consuming them. So a > logical path to follow here is once that part is done, we can figure out > how to deal with the compatibility and migration aspects, and if we have > a good solution move on to the relatively easy part of new parsers, > ResourceDefinitions etc. > > On 4/17/15 8:24 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: >> The reason this is coming up now is I am working on adding references to >> Elytron services from the interfaces, also I know there is plenty of >> demand for additional configuration options on these. >> >> So the question is should the management interface definitions be a part >> of a subsystem of their own or should they remain a top level? >> >> My vote would be make them a part of a subsystem, my main justifications >> being: - >> - They are going to be dependent on capabilities supplied by other >> subsystems. >> - We already have non-optimal code in there to access subsystem >> supplied services so can clean this up. >> - In standalone mode they should not be strictly necessary, it should >> be possible to remove all remote administration for standalone. >> >> Even in the case of a slave host controller, if that host controller >> pulls it's Elytron definition from the master it could also pull it's >> management interface definitions from master. >> >> 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