Additional Platform Fields

Richard Hensman richard at onevisionconsulting.co.uk
Sun Oct 21 21:28:25 UTC 2012


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 at 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 at lists.fedorahosted.org
> > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rhq-devel mailing list
> rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/rhq-devel/attachments/20121021/74645a11/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Additional Platform Fields Mockup.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 134711 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/rhq-devel/attachments/20121021/74645a11/attachment-0001.jpg>


More information about the rhq-devel mailing list