[jboss-dev-forums] [JBoss AS7 Development] - Detyped Representation of the AS 7 Management Model

[Brian Stansberry]

Brian Stansberry [http://community.jboss.org/people/bstansberry%40jboss.com] commented on the document

"Detyped Representation of the AS 7 Management Model"

To view all comments on this document, visit: http://community.jboss.org/docs/DOC-16317#comment-5206

--------------------------------------------------
In the initial version of this article, the "type" and "value-type" handling isn't right.

First, I don't think we should use org.jboss.dmr.ModelType for any enumerated values, as the purpose is different. ModelType gives information to someone with a ref to a ModelNode to let them determine the structure of the node.

A small improvement would be to make type one of an enumerated list of values: BIG_DECIMAL, BIG_INTEGER, BOOLEAN, BYTES, DOUBLE, INT, LIST, LONG, MAP (new), PROPERTY, STRING, or a complex structure detailing the fields and values of a non-simple-map kinds of dmr OBJECTs. The value-type is used with LIST, MAP, PROPERTY to describe the type list elements & map/property values, and is itself either on of the enumerated values or a complex structure.

This breaks down, of course, if value-type is itself LIST, MAP or PROPERTY.

These type descriptions will also break down for dynamic data; e.g. the reply-properties value for a generic operation like some generic "readAttribute" with param "attribute-name" => "foo". The description of the return value depends on the value of "attribute-name".

Similar issue exists with multi-step operations, where the structure of the return value incorporates multiple values, or with domain or host level operations, where the return value includes results from a dynamic set of hosts and servers.
--------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jboss-dev-forums/attachments/20110112/fd792b7a/attachment.html