[jboss-as7-dev] Two thread pools sections in management API

[David M. Lloyd]

The name issue wouldn't be quite so bad if we introduced some contract 
for each subsystem to introduce a unique name for their pools, and maybe 
another optional level of naming if they have more than one pool 
"namespace" in a subsystem.  Then a centralized view could be pretty 
intuitive: "Thread Pools -> EJB -> ..."

On 10/20/2011 10:12 AM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> I struggled with that global view a bit over the last week.
>
> I was thinking about approaching it as having it be a set of resources
> in the threads subsystem that are basically just views onto the real
> resource, which would exist in JCA, EJB etc.
>
> That's not very satisfying. Leads to things like having to avoid
> conflicts in pool names across subsystems. Plus it would be pretty hard
> to implement.
>
> I was noodling a bit this morning about separating the UI issue from the
> core model a bit. The core model (in the threads subsystem) could just
> provide resources addresses (and maybe a bit more metadata) about pools
> configured elsewhere. The resources for pools would be consistent
> throughout the model (e.g. a bounded-queue-thread-pool that supports
> blocking would have the same attributes, ops, etc everywhere). The
> console could use the info from the threads subsystem to discover all
> the pool configs and then build a nice UI.
>
> I suspect that's a problem for JON though. The CLI of course wouldn't be
> able to produce a nice unified view, but IMHO that's not a critical problem.
>
> On 10/20/11 8:16 AM, Jason Greene wrote:
>> Right. What happened is we found out that having thread pools be global
>> promotes sharing, which is usually an error since each subsystem needs
>> specific configurations. We were planning on adding a global view that
>> would see all the subsystems' thread pools so the administrator can
>> easily identify which were in use however I don't think it was completed
>> yet. Even though we neat them in the subsystem we still want them to be
>> consistent.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 20, 2011, at 5:58 AM, Heiko Braun<hbraun at redhat.com
>> <mailto:hbraun at redhat.com>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> no, but if possible they should rely on the default schema (xsd) for
>>> defining inlined thread pool configurations.
>>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2011, at 12:50 PM, David Bosschaert wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems that the latter defines pools that are used in
>>>> /subsystem=ejb3/service=*
>>>> Should they not be using thread pools defined in the threads subsystem
>>>> instead?
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>
>


-- 
- DML