I agree 100% with a single note: before "they can fix up any issues",
they have to know that there are issues. If the :migrate operation knows
that there will be issues (e.g. valves present in the old subsystem), it
would be _very nice_ if it provided a warning :-) The earlier is the
user aware of [possible] issues, the better.
I believe that the :migrate operations _could_ return these warnings in
the operation result, but since Brian thinks that this is problematic,
I'll have to leave the details up to you, guys :-)
LT
On 11.8.2015 04:05, Stuart Douglas wrote:
I don't think it should fail, imagine how frustrating that would
be from
a users perspective, as the only course of action they have is to delete
the relevant resource and try again. It would be much more user friendly
IMHO to just let the op complete and then they can fix up any issues,
they will still end up in the same situation, just with less work on
their part.
Stuart
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 at 10:40 Jason Greene <jason.greene(a)redhat.com
<mailto:jason.greene@redhat.com>> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Stuart Douglas
> <stuart.w.douglas(a)gmail.com <mailto:stuart.w.douglas@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
> > 3. What is the expected behavior when part which was configured as part
of the legacy subsystem is now configured outside of new subsystem having just reference
to it? Should the migration operation create the additional configuration even when it is
manipulating with configuration parts outside of the subsystem?
> > -- For example ssl configuration of https connector/listener. In Web
subsystem it is part of the connector configuration, in Undertow it is just reference to
security realm and it is defined as part of the security realms, should new security realm
be created with equivalent configuration to the one in legacy Web subsystem?
> >
>
> I'll let Stuart respond to this. Looking at the
> WebMigrateOperation (the
> handler for the web subsystem migrate op) it looks to be adding a
> security realm.
>
>
> Yes, at the moment I do create new security realms, and also add
> the IO subsystem with a default config if it is not already
> present. The names for the security realm will
> be jbossweb-migration-security-realm(n), where n is the lowest
> number that does not result in a name collision.
>
As an example of the fail-or-warn question, unless I am reading the
code wrong, it looks like things which don’t have a mapping (e.g.
tomcat valves) are ignored. Should the migration op fail if one is
used, or should it return a warning?
--
Jason T. Greene
WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev