On 23 Jun 2014, at 22:38, Kabir Khan <kabir.khan(a)jboss.com> wrote:
On 23 Jun 2014, at 21:31, Jason Greene <jason.greene(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2014, at 2:52 PM, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/23/2014 01:20 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>>> As we continue with our work splitting the WildFly code base into a core
>>> repo and then separate repos related to sets of features that we need to
>>> solidify the contracts between the various features and between features
>>> and the core.
>>>
>>> I've taken a crack at an initial design document on this: see [1]. We
>>> also need to do the practical work of identifying the various
>>> dependencies between our existing subsystems, see [2] for a start on that.
>>>
>>> I'd love to get feedback on this thread regarding the proposed design,
>>> as well as get direct edits on the [2] doc to flesh out the existing
>>> relationships.
>>
>> Here is what jumps out at me at first.
>>
>> • I don't understand the reason to not allow optional dependencies on
>> capabilities. It would be of similar implementation complexity to the
>> suggested permutation implementation, however it would avoid the problem
>> of requiring 2ⁿ permutations for n optional dependencies.
>
> I had the same thought.
I don’t really understand what you two are getting at here. What would an optional
requirement be? I can’t really get my head around “I would like this to be there but I
don’t care if it isn’t”.
I think we have such an use case in the messaging subsystem.
We will have a MESSAGING:CLUSTERED capability that will provide clustered messaging.
This capability may require JGROUPS:BASE capability to use the JGroups stack but it is not
mandatory since HornetQ also provides its own UDP stack that can be used if JGroups is not
there.
jeff
--
Jeff Mesnil
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://jmesnil.net/