On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano@redhat.com> wrote:
Il 13/09/2016 00:27, Stuart Douglas ha scritto:
How are you going to handle security? At the moment WebHost does not really allow you to set security domains etc. Are you planning on expanding it's functionality to cover this?
 oh, didn't notice that, I expected to setup security providing the same conf options that were in web.xml/jboss-web.xml in the war deployment. This said, I see that io.undertow.servlet.api.DeploymentInfo has that stuff, so I assume it should be possible to expand WebHostService and WebDeploymentBuilder a bit, similarly to what I did for supporting welcome pages.


BTW in many ways WebHost is a bit of a legacy artifact. It was introduced back when we supported both JBoss Web and Undertow. It may end up being better to just use Undertow API's directly, as I don't know if we really need the abstraction any more.
 What do you mean, directly doing the same that WebHostService does with the Undertow api in a service of mine?

I am more thinking about exposing the Undertow DeploymentInfo API directly, although I guess you would still need something similar to the WebHost service to provide integration with security domain etc (as that is provided by the Undertow subsystem, not Undertow itself).

Basically to add support for security we are going to need some way of specifying the constraints etc, which the DeploymentInfo API already does. It seems kind of silly to duplicate this.

Stuart

 

Thanks
Alessio



Stuart

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano@redhat.com> wrote:
I've invested some hours of Sunday on hacking a prototype doing more or
less what I explained below; see [1] . It builds using latest wise
snapshots, which are on nexus, anyway the changes I applied to wise-gui
are [2]
In particular, there's a service [3] that starts the webapp
programmatically; there's no more war deployment, the app is split into
3 modules plus few plain contents (html, js, css) in /wise.
I see no sensible change in boot time compared to when there's no wise
susbystem.
Any comments? shall we spend a bit of time cleaning up the prototype and
sending a PR with this new approach?

Thanks
Alessio

[1]
https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/compare/master...asoldano:wise-sandbox
[2]
https://github.com/asoldano/wise-gwt-gui/commit/679fad6e3f9244f1c1caf7507434dff0fbfe5701
[3]
https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/compare/master...asoldano:wise-sandbox#diff-0623bdf83c3d80b3ba52d0b82f89efc7R77

Il 05/09/2016 00:20, Alessio Soldano ha scritto:
> Il 31/08/2016 20:51, Jason Greene ha scritto:
>>> 1. lazy deployment of the utility
>> What did you have in mind? This sounds tricky. You could perhaps have the subsystem register an http handler that dynamically installs the server, but if you are going that far it’s best to just register the components directly as part of the subsystem than in a deployment.
> I've thought about this a bit tonight...yes, the wise.war could be
> exploded, its classes moved into the subsystem and the gtw and wise core
> jars left as external libs in their own modules. As for the lazy start,
> how about a service in the new wise subsystem that uses the WebHost
> service to start the servlet app (would need to provide it with a
> classloader including the required external libs mentioned before)? That
> could be triggered (on/off) by operations in the subsystem. Then the
> user would basically have to enable the gui using management (hal, cli).
>
> Cheers
> Alessio
>
>


--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss

_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev



-- 
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss