On 7/10/13 6:26 AM, Heiko W.Rupp wrote:
Am 09.07.2013 um 18:41 schrieb Brian Stansberry:
> Remember also that people will use the new CLI binary to manage legacy
> servers where HTTP upgrade is not an option. So even if by default WF
> isn't using 9999, there will be need for the CLI to deal cleanly with 9999.
And the other way around.
The issue there is whether port 9999 is even open. Jason has commented
he wants to eliminate it by default for WF 8. I'm personally just so-so
about that idea, but can't really make a good argument against it.[1] A
user can turn 9999 back on though if desired; the capability isn't being
removed.
If 9999 is open an older CLI will have no problem dealing with WF 8.
[1] I see this as kind of like ripping off a band-aid. At some point
external forces are going to force us toward using a minimal-port-count
default config. So if the band-aid is going to eventual come all the way
off, best to hurry up and get it over with.
--
Brian Stansberry
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat