[wildfly-dev] Management Model: Squatter Resources
David M. Lloyd
david.lloyd at redhat.com
Thu Oct 30 09:08:34 EDT 2014
I mean, a single child where there can be many possible types for that
child.
On 10/30/2014 08:01 AM, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> I think that polymorphism is a new use case for 'squatters'. I wonder
> if we have any existing code which enforces single children?
>
> On 10/30/2014 05:40 AM, Jeff Mesnil wrote:
>> I’m integrating HornetQ 2.5 in WildFly and I have a new use case for resources that is related to singleton/squatter resources.
>>
>> In HornetQ 2.5 they have completely rewritten the HA configuration. Basically, a server can be configured as live-only, replicated (master, slave, or colocated) or using shared-store (again as a master, slave or colocated).
>>
>> To represent this in the management model, I have added several resources under hornetq-server:
>>
>> /subsystem=messaging/
>> hornetq-server=*/
>> ha-policy=live-only
>> ha-policy=replicated-master
>> ha-policy=replicated-slave
>> ha-policy=replicated-colocated
>> ha-policy=shared-store-master
>> ha-policy=shared-store-slave
>> ha-policy=shared-store-colocated
>>
>> I have constraints for this ha-policy resource:
>> * There can at most one child for this type of resource (no child means no HA). This is enforces during the MODEL stage.
>> * The child can only be named using one of the 7 values above (i.e. there is no resource definition for ha-policy=*, using any other name would fail)
>>
>> Each ha-policy definition has a different set of attributes. Using an attribute group to represent the HA policy does not seem a good fit as some of them have subresources too.
>>
>> I wonder if that representation fits with our roadmap and whether it can be considered as a singleton (as there can only be one resource of that type among). I have the additional constraints of having only one chile for that type that is not covered by your proposal though.
>>
>> I especially wonder how the console (and to a lesser extent the cli) can deal with this resource.
>>
>> Heiko, is it something that would make sense for the console based on this resource description:
>>
>> [standalone at localhost:9990 hornetq-server=default] ./ha-policy=*:read-resource-description(recursive-depth=1)
>> {
>> "outcome" => "success",
>> "result" => [
>> {
>> "address" => [
>> ("subsystem" => "messaging"),
>> ("hornetq-server" => "default"),
>> ("ha-policy" => "replication-colocated")
>> ],
>> "outcome" => "success",
>> "result" => {
>> ...
>> }
>> },
>> {
>> "address" => [
>> ("subsystem" => "messaging"),
>> ("hornetq-server" => "default"),
>> ("ha-policy" => "replication-master")
>> ],
>> "outcome" => "success",
>> "result" => {
>> ...
>> }
>> },
>> {
>> "address" => [
>> ("subsystem" => "messaging"),
>> ("hornetq-server" => "default"),
>> ("ha-policy" => "shared-store-slave")
>> ],
>> "outcome" => "success",
>> "result" => {
>> ...
>> }
>> },
>> {
>> "address" => [
>> ("subsystem" => "messaging"),
>> ("hornetq-server" => "default"),
>> ("ha-policy" => "live-only")
>> ],
>> "outcome" => "success",
>> "result" => {
>> ...
>> }
>> },
>> {
>> "address" => [
>> ("subsystem" => "messaging"),
>> ("hornetq-server" => "default"),
>> ("ha-policy" => "shared-store-master")
>> ],
>> "outcome" => "success",
>> "result" => {
>> ...
>> }
>> },
>> {
>> "address" => [
>> ("subsystem" => "messaging"),
>> ("hornetq-server" => "default"),
>> ("ha-policy" => "replication-slave")
>> ],
>> "outcome" => "success",
>> "result" => {
>> ...
>> }
>> },
>> {
>> "address" => [
>> ("subsystem" => "messaging"),
>> ("hornetq-server" => "default"),
>> ("ha-policy" => "shared-store-colocated")
>> ],
>> "outcome" => "success",
>> "result" => {
>> ...
>> }
>> }
>> ]
>> }
>>
>> jeff
>>
>
--
- DML
More information about the wildfly-dev
mailing list