[wildfly-dev] Is JMX Needed in Core?

[Jason Greene]

On Jul 9, 2014, at 3:09 PM, Stuart Douglas <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.
 
-1 to moving deployment scanner and logging out of core.

--
Jason T. Greene
WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat