Yes had a looking at Tagging, but I was unaware of the namespace stuff. 

I can see how RHQ splits the tag on the equals sign and stores separately in the database, but cannot see how this has any effect in the GUI. From a usability point of view I was also hoping to display the values as shown in my mockup. I wonder if Heiko's idea of using per resource type additional fields would accomplish this?

On 22 October 2012 13:43, John Mazzitelli <mazz@redhat.com> wrote:
Did you look at the Tags feature? This can give you I think most of what you want (if not all of it) already. you can define custom tags like:

it:hwMake=Dell
it:hwModel=Precision
it:assetTag=123abc456
rich:notes=This is for human resources
biz:location=The HR building, fifth floor

You can then search for them using the Tags Cloud view.

Read: https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/RHQ/Tagging - it shows a screen snapshot of where you'd see these tags and how you'd add them (with the green circle + icon).


----- Original Message -----
>
> Hi
>
>
> To illustrate what I had in mind, please find attached mock up. I was
> thinking of including the the additional fields about the traits
> (shown in red).
>
>
> I agree using configuration would be an easy option, however this
> information would then be hidden away under a configuration tab. I
> have added this to the mockup to check my understanding.
>
>
> thanks
>
>
> Richard
>
>
> On 19 October 2012 00:25, John Mazzitelli < mazz@redhat.com > wrote:
>
>
> These definitely would NOT go into the Resource object. These look
> more like plugin configuration properties.
>
> You could look into using tags for something like this, too (
> https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/RHQ/Tagging ). You could use
> this today without changing plugins or things like that.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Richard,
> >
> > > I have a requirement to display some a additional on the platform
> > > in RHQ.
> > > • Make
> > > • Model
> > > • Asset Tag
> > > • Function
> > > • Notes
> > > Would it be ok to add these as additional fields to the Resource
> > > so
> > > that users can manually enter the values?
> >
> > Not sure if you mean this: The Resource.class is a bad place, as
> > this
> > is used for all the resources
> > in the system and thus the fields would also apply to services like
> > a
> > war file.
> >
> > What you could do though is to use the configuration object(s) for
> > this purpose and just e.g. add
> > a resource configuration object of the Linux type in the platform
> > plugin, which can then be filled by
> > hand or via the plugin. It is not exactly the right place, but a
> > place that already exists.
> >
> > I was thinking in the past about adding some location area to the
> > platforms as well (geographical and/or
> > building/room/rack/... ), so one could even add (attention: more
> > work) a new configuration for this purpose
> > that is also shown on the inventory tab, but a different subtab.
> >
> > I was also wondering in the past, if we could just have a generic
> > configuration definition, where
> > we'd provide some fields out of the box (e.g. "location" for a
> > platform) and where the admin could
> > then per resource type in the admin section of RHQ define
> > additional
> > fields. So those additional
> > fields would then not be defined in the plugin descriptor, but
> > dynamically - and could also only set
> > manually and not through plugin code (as this may not even know
> > about
> > the existence of the field).
> >
> > > I have investigated populating Make and Model from the BIOS. This
> > > can be done on Linux using dmidecode. This does mean the agent
> > > would need to run as root though.
> >
> > This is something which is already in some places I think and which
> > we may see more often.
> > Could it make sense to not call dmidecode directly from the
> > plugin/agent, but via some intermediary that
> > is small and runs suid root so that the agent does not need to run
> > as
> > root?
> >
> > I wonder if we should start writing SELinux policies for those
> > routines close to the operating system.
> >
> > Heiko
> >
> > --
> > Reg. Adresse: Red Hat GmbH, Technopark II, Haus C,
> > Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 14, D-85630 Grasbrunn
> > Handelsregister: Amtsgericht München HRB 153243
> > Geschaeftsführer: Mark Hegarty, Charlie Peters, Michael Cunningham,
> > Charles Cachera
> >
> >
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > rhq-devel mailing list
> > rhq-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rhq-devel mailing list
> rhq-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rhq-devel mailing list
> rhq-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
>
_______________________________________________
rhq-devel mailing list
rhq-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel