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