On 5/2/16 2:16 PM, John Mazzitelli wrote:
> BTW, I was brainstorming a bit in that last paragraph, forgetting
> I'm talking to someone who works on something that is a proper
> layer/add-on on top of WildFly, not an end user writing their own
> extensions. Proper layers/add-ons need to patchable, which adds another
> whole set of requirements beyond just needing to get bits replicated.
My whole email was a brainstorming session :) I don't think we'll need that
feature - but I was wondering if it did exist. If it did, might have been something to be
considered for something, but since it doesn't exist, that makes it easy. ;)
Cool; brainstorming is good. The bit about how extension modules are
already clearly referenced in the config model got me thinking a bit
about other possible similar patterns. Basically any config attribute
whose value is a module name could be annotated by the attribute author
as such and that could perhaps drive module propagation around the domain.
But my vague instinct is there needs to be a distinction of some sort
between stuff that's controlled by provisioning software (like
layers/add-ons) vs end user stuff where we are being asked to help the
user provision their own stuff.
wildfly-dev mailing list
Senior Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat