CLI scripts on the server

Alan Santos alan.santos at redhat.com
Thu Jan 6 22:05:58 UTC 2011


Thanks  -

I was curious where bundle delivery fit in. Splitting the difference 
sounds reasonable to me,  but am concerned about scope/schedule.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll just pimp 
http://www.jboss.org/modeshape one more time.

-alan


On 1/6/11 3:38 PM, John Mazzitelli wrote:
>> A shared file system isn't terribly onerous, isn't uncommon and it's
>> only required if you need to share scripts amongst highly available RHQ
>> servers.
> We recently added this capability to allow URL references to bundle
> files (as opposed to uploading them directly to the server into the DB).
> It is nice to have content stored in a customer's own filesystem but it
> is optional - if you want to use it, specify your bundle using a file:
> URL to point to your NFS mounted location where your bundle is located
> (i.e. file:/my-nfs-mount/bundles/foo.zip).
>
> However, note the difference - in the new bundle stuff - you aren't
> REQUIRED to use a distributed filesystem for the feature to work. If you
> don't (or can't) setup a filesystem shared across RHQ Servers, you are
> free to use the bundle subsystem anyway - just upload the content and
> we'll take care of distributing the content for you (via the DB).
>
> In the script case, if we ONLY support this feature by REQUIRING a
> shared file system - that introduces a requirement we never had and
> might cause some users not to be able to use it at all. It means you
> can't use this feature if you are using HA (multiple servers) but have
> no distributed filesystem common across all of them. That is limiting to
> me. I much prefer a more configurable option - use it if you want, don't
> use it if you don't or can't.
>
> I say we split the difference and do what we do for the bundle subsystem
> - support the ability to store scripts in the DB --or-- use URL based
> script locations (thus I can use file: URLs to specify where the script
> is located - or for that matter http:). This has the added benefit of
> allowing customers to host their scripts on a web server or some content
> control system (perhaps a git repo or a svn repo) - which was an actual
> enhancement request that came from the community for the bundle stuff
> and precipitated that new optional feature of allowing the URL-based
> bundle locations.
> _______________________________________________
> rhq-devel mailing list
> rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
>
> -- 
> Alan Santos
> Sr. Product Manager
> Red Hat, JBoss Middleware BU
> 617.818.7735
> alan.santos at redhat.com



More information about the rhq-devel mailing list