We would still need a few mngt ops, to fetch and upgrade the server provisioning. The
upgrade op perhaps would just trigger a backup, store the new server provisioning and
setup something that would indicate the need for upgrade, and restart the server. Then on
startup, it would notice the upgrade and do it, only after that completes the real server
would be started.
On 04 Sep 2014, at 14:06, Eduardo Martins <emartins(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Perhaps we should start with extending the capabilities of the
(standalone) server provisioner api, that we now use to build the server, to stop a
server, upgrade it offline, and start it again.
The offline upgrade would for now first delete files that were added in the previous
version of the server provision, supporting excludes/includes filters to don’t mess with
user/server data, and then provision “everything” again, skipping files that were kept in
the output dir. Tools would have access to the previous version of the server provision
and start editing from that.
On 04 Sep 2014, at 05:16, Stuart Douglas <sdouglas(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Work on the provisioning tool is now well underway, so I would like to
> revisit something I mentioned in my original email, which is allowing
> the provisioning tool to customize a provisioned server.
> I think there are a few options here, some more palatable than others.
> In no particular order:
> 1) Customize the XML directly
> Using this approach we would just directly customize the XML
> configuration files. This would basically require the use of XSLT
> (yuck), or require us to basically invent our own version of XSLT (even
> more yuck). Even though this approach will work, and will be fairly easy
> to implement, I think it would really suck from an end-user point of
> view, and I think we should discount it.
> 2) Allow the user to provide CLI commands to customise the server
> This is by far my favorite approach. The provisioning file would just
> contain a list of CLI commands, and would execute them in order. I think
> this is by far the most intuitive, and the CLI is well documented.
> 3) Allow the user to provide DMR operations to customize the server
> Similar to 2, but allow the user to provide DMR or JSON operations to
> customize the server. I think this is not nearly as nice as 2, as users
> are much more likely to be familiar with the CLI rather than DMR.
> I think 2 is by far the best approach, however it does open up the
> question of how and when to execute the operations. I think the easiest
> way to do this would be to just start the server in admin only mode on a
> custom port (so it will not interfere with any existing running Wildfly
> instances), and just execute the CLI commands in admin only mode.
> Does this all sound reasonable?
> wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev mailing list