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

On Apr 17, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Brian Stansberry <brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: A kernel schema bump to 2.0 is fine, thanks. For sure we will be making some changes so the chances of it being wasted effort are nil. > On 4/17/15 9:31 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: > 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 -- Brian Stansberry Senior Principal Software Engineer JBoss by Red Hat _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev