[jboss-as7-dev] add operation in CLI GUI

[ssilvert at redhat.com]

On 1/12/2012 7:15 PM, Kabir Khan wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2012, at 19:39, ssilvert at redhat.com wrote:
>
>> On 1/12/2012 1:09 PM, Kabir Khan wrote:
>>>> On 1/12/2012 11:39 AM, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
>>>>> I could suggest two ways to workaround this:
>>>>>
>>>>> - node type as a 'folder', currently the unit is node-type=node-name, 
>>>>> instead node-type could be a folder that contained node-names and you 
>>>>> could click on the node-type to add new nodes.
>>>> Early on I was going to do it this way, but it became clear that it
>>>> would be overly complicated and would break with the directory notion in
>>>> the CLI where a directory is /subsystem=jca/, not /subsystem/jca/.  Once
>>>> you replace = with / you lose sight of the underlying address scheme.
>>> Could the structure perhaps be 
>>> subsystem/
>>>  subsystem=jca
>>>  subsystem=jmx
>>> Or is that too weird?
>> I just tried that and it did indeed get weird.  You end up with nodes
>> that don't have any correspondence to the address path.  So you have to
>> code around it all over the place.  It also made any sort of refresh
>> impossible to implement without significant hacks.  I do need to improve
>> refresh at some point and I don't want to make that any harder than it
>> already is.
>>
>> Try my three latest commits found here and let me know what you think:
>> https://github.com/ssilvert/jboss-as/commits/cli-gui-fixadd
>>
>> Alexey, once you see it, let me know if you still think that "?" makes
>> more sense than "*".  That's an easy change.
> It looks better, perhaps instead of * or ? some descriptive string (that will not crash with any names used, so something like ***Root***) could work. Just an idea, not sure if it is a good or bad one...
I'm thinking of using a different icon to set it apart.
> I think the adds on the actual real nodes, e.g. extension=org.jboss.as.pojo, subsystem=someproperty etc. are a bit confusing now that we have the one mentioned above. 
If we remove "add" from the real nodes should we also remove
read-operation-description, read-resource-description, and
read-operation-names?  All those are generic to the resource type and
not to a specific resource.
> Likewise the adds on the subsystem nodes should not be there, they are wrong, since each subsystem has a different add handler, most of them taking parameters specific to that subsystem.
Sounds like a problem with the metadata.

> I thought I had sent the below to the list but I see I just sent it to Alexey not. Basically, it is impossible to add anything to something that has an add handler on a non-wildcard node, such as the subsystems:
> <mail>
> On 12 Jan 2012, at 18:57, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
>> But these don't appear to be a part of the management model. According 
>> to the model :) Let's fix the model, I'd say. Unless I'm missing 
>> something...
> I think that is against how the controller works, e.g.:
> [domain at localhost:9999 /] /subsystem=jmx:read-resource(recursive=true)
> {
>    "outcome" => "success",
>    "result" => {
>        "connector" => undefined,
>        "show-model" => true
>    }
> }
>
> If we add the jmx child we'll have something defined for connector=>jmx, but then if it is removed that node is removed from the model so we end up with ^ again. 
>
> Or in  the case of subsystems, I don't think we want loads of subsystem=>mysubsystem => undefined entries, when they have not been initialized.
> </mail>
> Perhaps a similar node as the one you have added for the non-wildcard case could work, which when opening the context menu looks for child add operations from read-resource-description? So you right-click on subsystem=***Root*** (or whatever we want to call it) and then you get add-jmx, add-ee etc.
>