[jboss-jira] [JBoss JIRA] (WFCORE-5079) The management layer should make it more obvious it is unsecured

[Darran Lofthouse (Jira)]

     [ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFCORE-5079?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Darran Lofthouse updated WFCORE-5079:
-------------------------------------
    Description: 
At the moment it is only in the documentation that it is unsecured, a list of layers could be created similar to:

{code:xml}
                            <configs>
                                <config>
                                    <name>standalone.xml</name>
                                    <model>standalone</model>
                                    <layers>
                                        <layer>management</layer>
                                        <layer>remoting</layer>
                                        <layer>elytron</layer>
                                        <layer>web-server</layer>
                                    </layers>
                                </config>
{code}

>From a code review of a snippet like this unless the documentation is cross referenced nothing looks out of place, if instead management was renamed unsecured-management it would be obvious in a review.

The following gist diff show the effect each of the three management layers presently has on the configuration.

* management - https://gist.github.com/darranl/e9f1c5a943684ce124c35638e376644f/revisions#diff-5aa4fdc36b50d25cb821a95561ae8ac6
* secure-management - https://gist.github.com/darranl/e9f1c5a943684ce124c35638e376644f/revisions#diff-0f10ad17f11531f347c5ca8f1161d52d
* legacy-management - https://gist.github.com/darranl/e9f1c5a943684ce124c35638e376644f/revisions#diff-5ffc930803c8c8a1824a9d90cb36b5e9


  was:
At the moment it is only in the documentation that it is unsecured, a list of layers could be created similar to:

{code:xml}
                            <configs>
                                <config>
                                    <name>standalone.xml</name>
                                    <model>standalone</model>
                                    <layers>
                                        <layer>management</layer>
                                        <layer>remoting</layer>
                                        <layer>elytron</layer>
                                        <layer>web-server</layer>
                                    </layers>
                                </config>
{code}

>From a code review of a snippet like this unless the documentation is cross referenced nothing looks out of place, if instead management was renamed unsecured-management it would be obvious in a review.




> The management layer should make it more obvious it is unsecured
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: WFCORE-5079
>                 URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFCORE-5079
>             Project: WildFly Core
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: Build System, Management
>            Reporter: Darran Lofthouse
>            Assignee: Darran Lofthouse
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 13.0.0.Beta4
>
>
> At the moment it is only in the documentation that it is unsecured, a list of layers could be created similar to:
> {code:xml}
>                             <configs>
>                                 <config>
>                                     <name>standalone.xml</name>
>                                     <model>standalone</model>
>                                     <layers>
>                                         <layer>management</layer>
>                                         <layer>remoting</layer>
>                                         <layer>elytron</layer>
>                                         <layer>web-server</layer>
>                                     </layers>
>                                 </config>
> {code}
> From a code review of a snippet like this unless the documentation is cross referenced nothing looks out of place, if instead management was renamed unsecured-management it would be obvious in a review.
> The following gist diff show the effect each of the three management layers presently has on the configuration.
> * management - https://gist.github.com/darranl/e9f1c5a943684ce124c35638e376644f/revisions#diff-5aa4fdc36b50d25cb821a95561ae8ac6
> * secure-management - https://gist.github.com/darranl/e9f1c5a943684ce124c35638e376644f/revisions#diff-0f10ad17f11531f347c5ca8f1161d52d
> * legacy-management - https://gist.github.com/darranl/e9f1c5a943684ce124c35638e376644f/revisions#diff-5ffc930803c8c8a1824a9d90cb36b5e9



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)