On 3/22/2012 1:20 PM, Ian Springer wrote:
I've expressed my opinion on this before, but let me reiterate
it.
The traditional definition of the three Resource categories is:
* platform - a machine (may be physical or virtual)
* server - a process running on a machine
* service - some entity within a process
Over the years, we have made a handful of deviations from these
definitions, defining certain entities within processes as servers,
rather than services. Some examples are the "Embedded Tomcat Server"
type from the as4 plugin, and the "JBoss AS JVM" and other "xxx JVM"
types. IMO, these should all be switched over to services, so we are
consistently following the above definitions.
Besides the inconsistency in what it means to be a server, there's
something else about having all these non-top-level server types that
annoys me on a regular basis. When I go the Inventory> Servers, I want
to get a nice listing of all the server processes in my inventory.
Instead, that list is cluttered by various JVM's and embedded Tomcat
"servers", and there's no easy way to filter those out.
I totally
agree, this drives me crazy. We completely overuse Server.
I'm not sure why one plugin would even define more than one Server.
Every Server should be a top level server.
And one final point - we actually have added special code in a bunch of
places to handle "top-level" servers differently than other servers. For
example, we auto-import non-top-level servers just like services
(because they should *be* services!).
So I vote to make all of the AS7 subsystems services, and not servers.
And I think we should seriously switching all existing non-top-level
server types to service types.
--Ian
On 03/22/2012 12:40 PM, Stefan Negrea wrote:
> Hello Everybody,
>
> Working on AS7 plugin, I noticed that most (but not all) of the AS7 subsystems are
configured as server resources. So what should new subsystems being added to the plugin be
mapped to, service or server? It is a hard decision to take with no guidelines in place.
Heiko suggested I should to ask for community feedback.
>
> I see one obvious case, if a subsystem does not have any children then it should be a
service. And of course there are the two extremes; all subsystems mapped to server
resources or all subsystems mapped to service resources.
>
> Should we use a middle ground approach (mix servers and services)? What would be a
good differentiator for what gets mapped to server vs. service among the subsystems?
>
> Or just go with one single type of resource for all subsystem? Should it be service
or server?
>
>
> Thank you,
> Stefan Negrea
>
> Software Engineer
>
> _______________________________________________
> rhq-devel mailing list
> rhq-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel