[jboss-as7-dev] Element names WAS: Management API Security - Part 2 ; -)

[Brian Stansberry]

On 3/11/11 6:31 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:

<snip/>

>>> On 03/10/2011 05:42 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>>>> Is there a better term than "management-api"? "API" doesn't feel right.
>>>>
>>>> "management-interface"
>
> Thinking about it is <management-interface> that overloaded? We use it
> elsewhere to specify network interfaces, the element we are talking
> about here is making the management accessible over a network interface.
> It is also the same as API with the A and the P removed ;-)
>

Summarizing the discussion we just had on #jboss-as7 -- 
"management-interfaces" is what we'll use. It's not that overloaded.

You suggested changing <interface(s)> to <network-interface(s)> to 
reduce the overloading, which I think has merit even ignoring the 
overloading issue. It's more precise.

If we are going to make this <network-interface(s)> change it will have 
to be before the next release. If anyone objects please speak up; 
otherwise after due consideration I'll rely on my god-like powers to 
either change it or not.

> Alternatively, JBoss Web has "connectors" - Messaging seems to have
> "connectors" and "acceptors". Once Remoting 3 is integrated what word
> will be used there to define the server side of the connection?
>

The advantage of "interface" is it's sufficiently broad to cover the 
entire use case; it's how people interface with the system to manage it. 
"connector" is more limited in scope to the "connecting" aspect.

> One point if we choose something different to management-api it would
> probably also make sense to move the <http-api> and <native-api>
> elements to the same so no reference to 'api' at all.
>

Yes, they should be consistent.


-- 
Brian Stansberry
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat