[wildfly-dev] Is JMX Needed in Core?

[Stuart Douglas]

Brian Stansberry wrote:
> On 7/9/14, 1:59 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>> The problem with that is that if you take it to its fullest extent you
>> end up with one subsystem per repo, which is not something we want.
>>
>> I am not sure where the best place for it is, even if it stays in core
>> it should be possible for the tooling to exclude it, same with logging.
>>
>> Otherwise I think the place for it to live would be the web distro, as I
>> think that people will definitely want to be able to use JMX to manage
>> that.
>>
>
> So the web build is becoming the spot where foundational stuff like this
> and Elytron come in? The core is uber-minimal for the folks who really
> want that, and then web has these things that lots and lots of folks
> will want.
>
> In the odd case where folks want this foundational stuff but not
> undertow etc, they can just depend on the web build and exclude
> undertow. Real corner case. And folks who don't want the foundational
> stuff exclude it.
>
> I can see that working out pretty well.
>
> Does logging belong in web then then? Still seems like something that
> even the uber-minimalists would want. I ask because it bugs me that we
> have two meanings now for "core" -- the old "core" notion that was the
> true core with zero subsystems, and now this new wildfly-core dist,
> which has subsystems.

I'm really not sure. TBH from a practical sense I don't think it makes 
any real difference, its more of an idealogical thing.

I guess if we look at web as being 'all the stuff that people will 
probably need' then it makes sense that logging, jmx and 
deployment-scanner live there instead of core.

Stuart


>
>>
>>
>> Fernando Nasser wrote:
>>> Shouldn't it be like an onion?
>>>
>>> A more bare core.  A Core with monitoring capabilities.  And so on.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2014-07-09, 2:27 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>>>> My earlier reply on this thread was in the branch focused on the
>>>> technical detail of how the dependency arises. Which should be fixed;
>>>> sounds like that's happening.
>>>>
>>>> On the broader question of where stuff belongs, JMX is an interesting
>>>> case. Lots of users will want JMX. A number of subsystems have optional
>>>> dependencies on it, including some like jgroups and infinispan that may
>>>> end up being part of their own dist, separate from the full dist.
>>>>
>>>> So what's the plan for catering to these needs? Ship it in the full dist
>>>> and those who want it depend on the full dist but configure the
>>>> provisioning tool to only grab the JMX modules? Make it a micro-dist?
>>>> Maybe a mini-dist packaged with some others? JMX, system-jmx, pojo as
>>>> the "deploy your own services" dist? (I don't like that last one, just
>>>> brainstorming...)
>>>>
>>>> On 7/9/14, 5:47 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>>>>> Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed in
>>>>> core?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is a
>>>>> subsystem all must have.
>>>>>
>>>> Manageable logging isn't either. Lots of people used logging.properties
>>>> for a long time.
>>>>
>>>> Note I'm not advocating removing logging from core; I'm just saying that
>>>> no subsystem has to be in core if that's the criteria.
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Darran Lofthouse.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>
>
>