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

[Jason T. Greene]

So, to me, the major benefits of something being a subsystem is that it is either optional or replaceable. Does elytron, at least the core of it, fit this? If not perhaps it should be part of the core model?

> On Apr 17, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Brian Stansberry <brian.stansberry at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> A kernel schema bump to 2.0 is fine, thanks. For sure we will be making 
> some changes so the chances of it being wasted effort are nil.
> 
>> On 4/17/15 9:31 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
> 
> 
> -- 
> Brian Stansberry
> Senior Principal Software Engineer
> JBoss by Red Hat
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev