[wildfly-dev] Should management interfaces be in a subsystem?

[Darran Lofthouse]

Thanks Brian,

So this does sound like I should go ahead and bump the schema and 
management versions so I can continue with my tasks and I will send in a 
PR as soon as we move to 2.0.x development.

Enhancements to the interface definitions can continue along that path 
until we feel ready to move them.

Regards,
Darran Lofthouse.


On 17/04/15 15:26, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> Long term answer:
>
> Yes, I think they should be in a subsystem.
>
> Short term answer:
>
> That will be a lot of work, particularly in regards to providing the
> necessary compatibility and, possibly, migration support. So I think we
> need to get further along on our list of must have stuff before we
> attack this problem in a lot of depth. If we can get to it, great.
>
> I believe the capabilities and requirements stuff should clean up a lot
> of the issues around kernel stuff needing things provided by by
> subsystems. The distinction should disappear, and it all becomes just
> things providing capabilities and other things consuming them. So a
> logical path to follow here is once that part is done, we can figure out
> how to deal with the compatibility and migration aspects, and if we have
> a good solution move on to the relatively easy part of new parsers,
> ResourceDefinitions etc.
>
> On 4/17/15 8:24 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>> The reason this is coming up now is I am working on adding references to
>> Elytron services from the interfaces, also I know there is plenty of
>> demand for additional configuration options on these.
>>
>> So the question is should the management interface definitions be a part
>> of a subsystem of their own or should they remain a top level?
>>
>> My vote would be make them a part of a subsystem, my main justifications
>> being: -
>>     - They are going to be dependent on capabilities supplied by other
>> subsystems.
>>     - We already have non-optimal code in there to access subsystem
>> supplied services so can clean this up.
>>     - In standalone mode they should not be strictly necessary, it should
>> be possible to remove all remote administration for standalone.
>>
>> Even in the case of a slave host controller, if that host controller
>> pulls it's Elytron definition from the master it could also pull it's
>> management interface definitions from master.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Darran Lofthouse.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>
>
>