[jbosstools-dev] Extending the AS Server View

[Rob Cernich]

> >>> I'll try to file down the edges and put a patch together.
> >> 
> >> I do like we can navigate this tree stuff - but feels more like a
> >> raw "debugging" tool
> >> rather than one to actually show content in a user understandable
> >> way.

That problem can certainly be addressed.  One of the the things that would improve things would be to add a label/icon extension where the "raw" names could be replaced with something more user friendly.  Also, I think the "Attributes" node should be replaced by a property page.

> >> i.e. instead of having existing deployment's buried under
> >> root/deployment/* I would
> >> expect that as a higher level node at a more accessible level.
> > 
> > That root node simply serves to separate this information from
> > other information in the tree.  I don't see any reason why that
> > node couldn't be eliminated from the view.
> 
> well then we would expose this "raw" view top nodes fully into the
> server view - it would be very noisy IMO.
> 
> Don't you think having the root node is a good thing for the "full
> raw" stuff ?

Actually, I don't mind the current layout.  I think better icons, labels and moving attributes to a property page would go a long way toward sprucing it up.  Filters can be used to prune out really low-level stuff (e.g. Extensions).

> >  Regarding my planned work for SwitchYard, I was thinking about
> >  modifying the way the "root" is initialized so that another root
> >  path could be specified (e.g. /subsystem=switchyard as opposed to
> >  "/").
> 
> sure - except that still will expose things 'raw' …. but sure, it
> could be a nice to have.

Yes, but nothing forces me to use the existing tree structure.  Child content can easily be replaced with a more knowledgeable model.

> > I was also thinking "attributes" might be better displayed in the
> > properties view, since some property types may be more
> > sophisticated than a simple literal.  It also cleans up the tree a
> > bit.
> 
> Yes, fully agreed.
> 
> >> …not sure how to link the current list of deployments together
> >> with
> >> the actual existing ones..maybe have those
> >> we  don't have knowledge about being greyed out or something?
> > 
> > It would probably make more sense to grey out the items that are
> > published through the workspace, since they are already visible in
> > the view.
> 
> Well the items visible now doesn't really have a natural link to them
> …. besides their file name.

Leave them all.  I don't really think it matters.

> WDYT? is the problem of overshadowing jars overrated?

See separate response.