[wildfly-dev] Run level as a factor for capabilities and requirements?

[David Lloyd]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Brian Stansberry
<brian.stansberry at redhat.com> wrote:
> Something the current capabilities/requirements stuff doesn't handle is the
> fact that some capabilities can be configured but won't be turned on in some
> situations (i.e. admin-only). Which means other capabilities that might
> require them and that are present in admin-only will pass configuration
> consistency checks but will fail at runtime.
>
> I'm not sure what to do about this. Some off the top of my head thoughts:
>
> 1) The capability description data on wildly-capabilities includes something
> about this, so people who want to require the capability understand whether
> it can be required.
>
> This is easy, and helps avoids future bugs. It's just documentation so it
> does nothing about the actual server behavior.
>
> 2) The registration for capabilities could include "minimal running-mode"
> data, and then the capability resolution could check that and fail if it
> finds a mismatch in the current running mode.

I'm inclined towards this option.  But...

> This is more work obviously. It may help surface problems earlier, i.e. make
> it more likely that a testsuite catches a mismatch in time to correct it
> before a .Final release. It would also have the minor benefit of perhaps
> providing a better error message for a user who configures a mismatch.

It'd be best if we can detect this more up front if possible.  If this
kind of mismatch occurs, I think it would never be the user's fault.

--
- DML