Is JMX Needed in Core?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
33 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Is JMX Needed in Core?

Darran Lofthouse
Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed in
core?

Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is a
subsystem all must have.

Regards,
Darran Lofthouse.
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Tomaž Cerar-2
Unfortunately it is needed.

At least at this point of the project.
I tired hard not to have it back when I was doing just separate core build.

Current dependency tree for it includes:

- wildfly-server
- wildfly-system-jmx

+ arquillian, but that is not a problem anymore given that we moved it out of core and it is not required anymore.

But probably we can revisit that and try to remove it now that there is no need for arq anymore in core.
Big chunk of core testsuite will need to be updated to not use jmx subsystem anymore.


Darren, can you create jira for this and assign it to me? I will take look.

--
tomaz



On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Darran Lofthouse <[hidden email]> wrote:
Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed in
core?

Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is a
subsystem all must have.

Regards,
Darran Lofthouse.
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev


_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Brian Stansberry
IMHO wildfly-system-jmx does not need to be in core. It's analogous to
wildfly-pojo and that's not in core.

We should sort out the wildfly-server dependency, whatever it is, and
either eliminate it or make it something that relies on an optional
capability.

On 7/9/14, 6:52 AM, Tomaž Cerar wrote:

> Unfortunately it is needed.
>
> At least at this point of the project.
> I tired hard not to have it back when I was doing just separate core build.
>
> Current dependency tree for it includes:
>
> - wildfly-server
> - wildfly-system-jmx
>
> + arquillian, but that is not a problem anymore given that we moved it
> out of core and it is not required anymore.
>
> But probably we can revisit that and try to remove it now that there is
> no need for arq anymore in core.
> Big chunk of core testsuite will need to be updated to not use jmx
> subsystem anymore.
>
>
> Darren, can you create jira for this and assign it to me? I will take look.
>
> --
> tomaz
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Darran Lofthouse
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed in
>     core?
>
>     Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is a
>     subsystem all must have.
>
>     Regards,
>     Darran Lofthouse.
>     _______________________________________________
>     wildfly-dev mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>


--
Brian Stansberry
Senior Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Darran Lofthouse
In reply to this post by Tomaž Cerar-2
As requested: -
   https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-3605

Regards,
Darran Lofthouse.


On 09/07/14 12:52, Tomaž Cerar wrote:

> Unfortunately it is needed.
>
> At least at this point of the project.
> I tired hard not to have it back when I was doing just separate core build.
>
> Current dependency tree for it includes:
>
> - wildfly-server
> - wildfly-system-jmx
>
> + arquillian, but that is not a problem anymore given that we moved it
> out of core and it is not required anymore.
>
> But probably we can revisit that and try to remove it now that there is
> no need for arq anymore in core.
> Big chunk of core testsuite will need to be updated to not use jmx
> subsystem anymore.
>
>
> Darren, can you create jira for this and assign it to me? I will take look.
>
> --
> tomaz
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Darran Lofthouse
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed in
>     core?
>
>     Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is a
>     subsystem all must have.
>
>     Regards,
>     Darran Lofthouse.
>     _______________________________________________
>     wildfly-dev mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Tomaž Cerar-2
In reply to this post by Brian Stansberry

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Brian Stansberry <[hidden email]> wrote:
We should sort out the wildfly-server dependency, whatever it is, and
either eliminate it or make it something that relies on an optional
capability.


Agreed, most of the hard deps ware because of ARQ container needs, but that is gone now.
I have most of work done to move it out. just need some more testing.

One thing that looks fishy is Audit logging (part of controller) that has hard coded mgmt paths to JMX subsystem
not really sure how this works if jmx is not present.

Kabir, if we move jmx out will there be any issues with that? Beyond fact that audit logging working only when jmx subsystem is present?

--
tomaz

_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Tomaž Cerar-2
In reply to this post by Darran Lofthouse

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Darran Lofthouse <[hidden email]> wrote:


Tnx

_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Brian Stansberry
In reply to this post by Darran Lofthouse
My earlier reply on this thread was in the branch focused on the
technical detail of how the dependency arises. Which should be fixed;
sounds like that's happening.

On the broader question of where stuff belongs, JMX is an interesting
case. Lots of users will want JMX. A number of subsystems have optional
dependencies on it, including some like jgroups and infinispan that may
end up being part of their own dist, separate from the full dist.

So what's the plan for catering to these needs? Ship it in the full dist
and those who want it depend on the full dist but configure the
provisioning tool to only grab the JMX modules? Make it a micro-dist?
Maybe a mini-dist packaged with some others? JMX, system-jmx, pojo as
the "deploy your own services" dist? (I don't like that last one, just
brainstorming...)

On 7/9/14, 5:47 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
> Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed in
> core?
>
> Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is a
> subsystem all must have.
>

Manageable logging isn't either. Lots of people used logging.properties
for a long time.

Note I'm not advocating removing logging from core; I'm just saying that
no subsystem has to be in core if that's the criteria.

> Regards,
> Darran Lofthouse.
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>


--
Brian Stansberry
Senior Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Fernando Nasser
Shouldn't it be like an onion?

A more bare core.  A Core with monitoring capabilities.  And so on.


On 2014-07-09, 2:27 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:

> My earlier reply on this thread was in the branch focused on the
> technical detail of how the dependency arises. Which should be fixed;
> sounds like that's happening.
>
> On the broader question of where stuff belongs, JMX is an interesting
> case. Lots of users will want JMX. A number of subsystems have optional
> dependencies on it, including some like jgroups and infinispan that may
> end up being part of their own dist, separate from the full dist.
>
> So what's the plan for catering to these needs? Ship it in the full dist
> and those who want it depend on the full dist but configure the
> provisioning tool to only grab the JMX modules? Make it a micro-dist?
> Maybe a mini-dist packaged with some others? JMX, system-jmx, pojo as
> the "deploy your own services" dist? (I don't like that last one, just
> brainstorming...)
>
> On 7/9/14, 5:47 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>> Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed in
>> core?
>>
>> Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is a
>> subsystem all must have.
>>
> Manageable logging isn't either. Lots of people used logging.properties
> for a long time.
>
> Note I'm not advocating removing logging from core; I'm just saying that
> no subsystem has to be in core if that's the criteria.
>
>> Regards,
>> Darran Lofthouse.
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>
>

_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Patton, John
In reply to this post by Brian Stansberry
I'd like to vote for adding it into the full dist and configuring the
provisioning tool to grab the JMX modules.

We rely on JMX for accessing specific monitoring metrics and it's
difficult to get at some of the metrics that used to be easily available
in prior versions for some metrics.  We've had to jump through some hoops
to get JMX working the way we need in wildfly 8 -- with the new undertow
module, we had to write some code to expose some metrics that used to be
part of the jbossweb module, like avgResponseTimeMS and requestCount.
Would be awesome if JMX support was more complete and part of the full
dist.

Cheers,

John H Patton



On 7/9/14 1:27 PM, "Brian Stansberry" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>My earlier reply on this thread was in the branch focused on the
>technical detail of how the dependency arises. Which should be fixed;
>sounds like that's happening.
>
>On the broader question of where stuff belongs, JMX is an interesting
>case. Lots of users will want JMX. A number of subsystems have optional
>dependencies on it, including some like jgroups and infinispan that may
>end up being part of their own dist, separate from the full dist.
>
>So what's the plan for catering to these needs? Ship it in the full dist
>and those who want it depend on the full dist but configure the
>provisioning tool to only grab the JMX modules? Make it a micro-dist?
>Maybe a mini-dist packaged with some others? JMX, system-jmx, pojo as
>the "deploy your own services" dist? (I don't like that last one, just
>brainstorming...)
>
>On 7/9/14, 5:47 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>> Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed in
>> core?
>>
>> Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is a
>> subsystem all must have.
>>
>
>Manageable logging isn't either. Lots of people used logging.properties
>for a long time.
>
>Note I'm not advocating removing logging from core; I'm just saying that
>no subsystem has to be in core if that's the criteria.
>
>> Regards,
>> Darran Lofthouse.
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>
>
>
>--
>Brian Stansberry
>Senior Principal Software Engineer
>JBoss by Red Hat
>_______________________________________________
>wildfly-dev mailing list
>[hidden email]
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev

This message, including any attachments, is the property of Sears Holdings Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries. It is confidential and may contain proprietary or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it without reading the contents. Thank you.

_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Stuart Douglas
In reply to this post by Fernando Nasser
The problem with that is that if you take it to its fullest extent you
end up with one subsystem per repo, which is not something we want.

I am not sure where the best place for it is, even if it stays in core
it should be possible for the tooling to exclude it, same with logging.

Otherwise I think the place for it to live would be the web distro, as I
think that people will definitely want to be able to use JMX to manage
that.

Stuart



Fernando Nasser wrote:

> Shouldn't it be like an onion?
>
> A more bare core.  A Core with monitoring capabilities.  And so on.
>
>
> On 2014-07-09, 2:27 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>> My earlier reply on this thread was in the branch focused on the
>> technical detail of how the dependency arises. Which should be fixed;
>> sounds like that's happening.
>>
>> On the broader question of where stuff belongs, JMX is an interesting
>> case. Lots of users will want JMX. A number of subsystems have optional
>> dependencies on it, including some like jgroups and infinispan that may
>> end up being part of their own dist, separate from the full dist.
>>
>> So what's the plan for catering to these needs? Ship it in the full dist
>> and those who want it depend on the full dist but configure the
>> provisioning tool to only grab the JMX modules? Make it a micro-dist?
>> Maybe a mini-dist packaged with some others? JMX, system-jmx, pojo as
>> the "deploy your own services" dist? (I don't like that last one, just
>> brainstorming...)
>>
>> On 7/9/14, 5:47 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>>> Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed in
>>> core?
>>>
>>> Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is a
>>> subsystem all must have.
>>>
>> Manageable logging isn't either. Lots of people used logging.properties
>> for a long time.
>>
>> Note I'm not advocating removing logging from core; I'm just saying that
>> no subsystem has to be in core if that's the criteria.
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Darran Lofthouse.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Brian Stansberry
In reply to this post by Patton, John
If things you need are not exposed via the undertow subsystem management
API, please file feature request JIRAs. Or even better, send a patch if
you exposed it via the subsystem.

On 7/9/14, 1:55 PM, Patton, John wrote:

> I'd like to vote for adding it into the full dist and configuring the
> provisioning tool to grab the JMX modules.
>
> We rely on JMX for accessing specific monitoring metrics and it's
> difficult to get at some of the metrics that used to be easily available
> in prior versions for some metrics.  We've had to jump through some hoops
> to get JMX working the way we need in wildfly 8 -- with the new undertow
> module, we had to write some code to expose some metrics that used to be
> part of the jbossweb module, like avgResponseTimeMS and requestCount.
> Would be awesome if JMX support was more complete and part of the full
> dist.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John H Patton
>
>
>
> On 7/9/14 1:27 PM, "Brian Stansberry" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> My earlier reply on this thread was in the branch focused on the
>> technical detail of how the dependency arises. Which should be fixed;
>> sounds like that's happening.
>>
>> On the broader question of where stuff belongs, JMX is an interesting
>> case. Lots of users will want JMX. A number of subsystems have optional
>> dependencies on it, including some like jgroups and infinispan that may
>> end up being part of their own dist, separate from the full dist.
>>
>> So what's the plan for catering to these needs? Ship it in the full dist
>> and those who want it depend on the full dist but configure the
>> provisioning tool to only grab the JMX modules? Make it a micro-dist?
>> Maybe a mini-dist packaged with some others? JMX, system-jmx, pojo as
>> the "deploy your own services" dist? (I don't like that last one, just
>> brainstorming...)
>>
>> On 7/9/14, 5:47 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>>> Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed in
>>> core?
>>>
>>> Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is a
>>> subsystem all must have.
>>>
>>
>> Manageable logging isn't either. Lots of people used logging.properties
>> for a long time.
>>
>> Note I'm not advocating removing logging from core; I'm just saying that
>> no subsystem has to be in core if that's the criteria.
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Darran Lofthouse.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Brian Stansberry
>> Senior Principal Software Engineer
>> JBoss by Red Hat
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>
> This message, including any attachments, is the property of Sears Holdings Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries. It is confidential and may contain proprietary or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it without reading the contents. Thank you.
>


--
Brian Stansberry
Senior Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Patton, John
I'll check if we did.  We're looking into releasing the code we built to
expose the metrics, but we have to get approvals and it's taking a while.

Perhaps my thoughts are out of scope for the one conversation I decided to
jump into. :)  But, I do like having JMX available in the full dist and
enabling the modules in the provisioning tool.  That sounds appealing
irrespective of the trouble we had grabbing various metrics once we got
JMX working.  JMX has felt a bit like an afterthought with wildfly.

Cheers,

-john




On 7/9/14 2:12 PM, "Brian Stansberry" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>If things you need are not exposed via the undertow subsystem management
>API, please file feature request JIRAs. Or even better, send a patch if
>you exposed it via the subsystem.
>
>On 7/9/14, 1:55 PM, Patton, John wrote:
>> I'd like to vote for adding it into the full dist and configuring the
>> provisioning tool to grab the JMX modules.
>>
>> We rely on JMX for accessing specific monitoring metrics and it's
>> difficult to get at some of the metrics that used to be easily available
>> in prior versions for some metrics.  We've had to jump through some
>>hoops
>> to get JMX working the way we need in wildfly 8 -- with the new undertow
>> module, we had to write some code to expose some metrics that used to be
>> part of the jbossweb module, like avgResponseTimeMS and requestCount.
>> Would be awesome if JMX support was more complete and part of the full
>> dist.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John H Patton
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/9/14 1:27 PM, "Brian Stansberry" <[hidden email]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> My earlier reply on this thread was in the branch focused on the
>>> technical detail of how the dependency arises. Which should be fixed;
>>> sounds like that's happening.
>>>
>>> On the broader question of where stuff belongs, JMX is an interesting
>>> case. Lots of users will want JMX. A number of subsystems have optional
>>> dependencies on it, including some like jgroups and infinispan that may
>>> end up being part of their own dist, separate from the full dist.
>>>
>>> So what's the plan for catering to these needs? Ship it in the full
>>>dist
>>> and those who want it depend on the full dist but configure the
>>> provisioning tool to only grab the JMX modules? Make it a micro-dist?
>>> Maybe a mini-dist packaged with some others? JMX, system-jmx, pojo as
>>> the "deploy your own services" dist? (I don't like that last one, just
>>> brainstorming...)
>>>
>>> On 7/9/14, 5:47 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>>>> Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed
>>>>in
>>>> core?
>>>>
>>>> Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is a
>>>> subsystem all must have.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Manageable logging isn't either. Lots of people used logging.properties
>>> for a long time.
>>>
>>> Note I'm not advocating removing logging from core; I'm just saying
>>>that
>>> no subsystem has to be in core if that's the criteria.
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Darran Lofthouse.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brian Stansberry
>>> Senior Principal Software Engineer
>>> JBoss by Red Hat
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>
>> This message, including any attachments, is the property of Sears
>>Holdings Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries. It is confidential
>>and may contain proprietary or legally privileged information. If you
>>are not the intended recipient, please delete it without reading the
>>contents. Thank you.
>>
>
>
>--
>Brian Stansberry
>Senior Principal Software Engineer
>JBoss by Red Hat

This message, including any attachments, is the property of Sears Holdings Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries. It is confidential and may contain proprietary or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it without reading the contents. Thank you.

_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Stuart Douglas


Patton, John wrote:
> I'll check if we did.  We're looking into releasing the code we built to
> expose the metrics, but we have to get approvals and it's taking a while.
>
> Perhaps my thoughts are out of scope for the one conversation I decided to
> jump into. :)  But, I do like having JMX available in the full dist and
> enabling the modules in the provisioning tool.  That sounds appealing
> irrespective of the trouble we had grabbing various metrics once we got
> JMX working.  JMX has felt a bit like an afterthought with wildfly.

Where JMX lives in the distro should not have any effect on the
capabilities of the JMX subsystem. It will still be the same subsystem
with the same functionality wether it lives in core or the full dist.

Stuart

>
> Cheers,
>
> -john
>
>
>
>
> On 7/9/14 2:12 PM, "Brian Stansberry"<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> If things you need are not exposed via the undertow subsystem management
>> API, please file feature request JIRAs. Or even better, send a patch if
>> you exposed it via the subsystem.
>>
>> On 7/9/14, 1:55 PM, Patton, John wrote:
>>> I'd like to vote for adding it into the full dist and configuring the
>>> provisioning tool to grab the JMX modules.
>>>
>>> We rely on JMX for accessing specific monitoring metrics and it's
>>> difficult to get at some of the metrics that used to be easily available
>>> in prior versions for some metrics.  We've had to jump through some
>>> hoops
>>> to get JMX working the way we need in wildfly 8 -- with the new undertow
>>> module, we had to write some code to expose some metrics that used to be
>>> part of the jbossweb module, like avgResponseTimeMS and requestCount.
>>> Would be awesome if JMX support was more complete and part of the full
>>> dist.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John H Patton
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/9/14 1:27 PM, "Brian Stansberry"<[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My earlier reply on this thread was in the branch focused on the
>>>> technical detail of how the dependency arises. Which should be fixed;
>>>> sounds like that's happening.
>>>>
>>>> On the broader question of where stuff belongs, JMX is an interesting
>>>> case. Lots of users will want JMX. A number of subsystems have optional
>>>> dependencies on it, including some like jgroups and infinispan that may
>>>> end up being part of their own dist, separate from the full dist.
>>>>
>>>> So what's the plan for catering to these needs? Ship it in the full
>>>> dist
>>>> and those who want it depend on the full dist but configure the
>>>> provisioning tool to only grab the JMX modules? Make it a micro-dist?
>>>> Maybe a mini-dist packaged with some others? JMX, system-jmx, pojo as
>>>> the "deploy your own services" dist? (I don't like that last one, just
>>>> brainstorming...)
>>>>
>>>> On 7/9/14, 5:47 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>>>>> Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed
>>>>> in
>>>>> core?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is a
>>>>> subsystem all must have.
>>>>>
>>>> Manageable logging isn't either. Lots of people used logging.properties
>>>> for a long time.
>>>>
>>>> Note I'm not advocating removing logging from core; I'm just saying
>>>> that
>>>> no subsystem has to be in core if that's the criteria.
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Darran Lofthouse.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Brian Stansberry
>>>> Senior Principal Software Engineer
>>>> JBoss by Red Hat
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>> This message, including any attachments, is the property of Sears
>>> Holdings Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries. It is confidential
>>> and may contain proprietary or legally privileged information. If you
>>> are not the intended recipient, please delete it without reading the
>>> contents. Thank you.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Brian Stansberry
>> Senior Principal Software Engineer
>> JBoss by Red Hat
>
> This message, including any attachments, is the property of Sears Holdings Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries. It is confidential and may contain proprietary or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it without reading the contents. Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Patton, John

On 7/9/14 2:31 PM, "Stuart Douglas" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>Patton, John wrote:
>> I'll check if we did.  We're looking into releasing the code we built to
>> expose the metrics, but we have to get approvals and it's taking a
>>while.
>>
>> Perhaps my thoughts are out of scope for the one conversation I decided
>>to
>> jump into. :)  But, I do like having JMX available in the full dist and
>> enabling the modules in the provisioning tool.  That sounds appealing
>> irrespective of the trouble we had grabbing various metrics once we got
>> JMX working.  JMX has felt a bit like an afterthought with wildfly.
>
>Where JMX lives in the distro should not have any effect on the
>capabilities of the JMX subsystem. It will still be the same subsystem
>with the same functionality wether it lives in core or the full dist.

Yep, that makes sense. :)  I'll go back to lurking again.

Cheers,

-john

>
>Stuart
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -john
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/9/14 2:12 PM, "Brian Stansberry"<[hidden email]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> If things you need are not exposed via the undertow subsystem
>>>management
>>> API, please file feature request JIRAs. Or even better, send a patch if
>>> you exposed it via the subsystem.
>>>
>>> On 7/9/14, 1:55 PM, Patton, John wrote:
>>>> I'd like to vote for adding it into the full dist and configuring the
>>>> provisioning tool to grab the JMX modules.
>>>>
>>>> We rely on JMX for accessing specific monitoring metrics and it's
>>>> difficult to get at some of the metrics that used to be easily
>>>>available
>>>> in prior versions for some metrics.  We've had to jump through some
>>>> hoops
>>>> to get JMX working the way we need in wildfly 8 -- with the new
>>>>undertow
>>>> module, we had to write some code to expose some metrics that used to
>>>>be
>>>> part of the jbossweb module, like avgResponseTimeMS and requestCount.
>>>> Would be awesome if JMX support was more complete and part of the full
>>>> dist.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John H Patton
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/9/14 1:27 PM, "Brian Stansberry"<[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My earlier reply on this thread was in the branch focused on the
>>>>> technical detail of how the dependency arises. Which should be fixed;
>>>>> sounds like that's happening.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the broader question of where stuff belongs, JMX is an interesting
>>>>> case. Lots of users will want JMX. A number of subsystems have
>>>>>optional
>>>>> dependencies on it, including some like jgroups and infinispan that
>>>>>may
>>>>> end up being part of their own dist, separate from the full dist.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what's the plan for catering to these needs? Ship it in the full
>>>>> dist
>>>>> and those who want it depend on the full dist but configure the
>>>>> provisioning tool to only grab the JMX modules? Make it a micro-dist?
>>>>> Maybe a mini-dist packaged with some others? JMX, system-jmx, pojo as
>>>>> the "deploy your own services" dist? (I don't like that last one,
>>>>>just
>>>>> brainstorming...)
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/9/14, 5:47 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>>>>>> Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> core?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is
>>>>>>a
>>>>>> subsystem all must have.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Manageable logging isn't either. Lots of people used
>>>>>logging.properties
>>>>> for a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note I'm not advocating removing logging from core; I'm just saying
>>>>> that
>>>>> no subsystem has to be in core if that's the criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Darran Lofthouse.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Brian Stansberry
>>>>> Senior Principal Software Engineer
>>>>> JBoss by Red Hat
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>> This message, including any attachments, is the property of Sears
>>>> Holdings Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries. It is
>>>>confidential
>>>> and may contain proprietary or legally privileged information. If you
>>>> are not the intended recipient, please delete it without reading the
>>>> contents. Thank you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brian Stansberry
>>> Senior Principal Software Engineer
>>> JBoss by Red Hat
>>
>> This message, including any attachments, is the property of Sears
>>Holdings Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries. It is confidential
>>and may contain proprietary or legally privileged information. If you
>>are not the intended recipient, please delete it without reading the
>>contents. Thank you.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev

This message, including any attachments, is the property of Sears Holdings Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries. It is confidential and may contain proprietary or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it without reading the contents. Thank you.

_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

kkhan
In reply to this post by Tomaž Cerar-2

On 9 Jul 2014, at 18:53, Tomaž Cerar <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Brian Stansberry <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We should sort out the wildfly-server dependency, whatever it is, and
> either eliminate it or make it something that relies on an optional
> capability.
>
>
> Agreed, most of the hard deps ware because of ARQ container needs, but that is gone now.
> I have most of work done to move it out. just need some more testing.
>
> One thing that looks fishy is Audit logging (part of controller) that has hard coded mgmt paths to JMX subsystem
> not really sure how this works if jmx is not present.
>
> Kabir, if we move jmx out will there be any issues with that? Beyond fact that audit logging working only when jmx subsystem is present?
IIRC all it does is when you remove an audit log handler, to look under subsystem=jmx to make sure it’s audit logger is not using the handler. So it should not be an issue.

>
> --
> tomaz
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev


_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Brian Stansberry
In reply to this post by Stuart Douglas
On 7/9/14, 1:59 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:

> The problem with that is that if you take it to its fullest extent you
> end up with one subsystem per repo, which is not something we want.
>
> I am not sure where the best place for it is, even if it stays in core
> it should be possible for the tooling to exclude it, same with logging.
>
> Otherwise I think the place for it to live would be the web distro, as I
> think that people will definitely want to be able to use JMX to manage
> that.
>

So the web build is becoming the spot where foundational stuff like this
and Elytron come in? The core is uber-minimal for the folks who really
want that, and then web has these things that lots and lots of folks
will want.

In the odd case where folks want this foundational stuff but not
undertow etc, they can just depend on the web build and exclude
undertow. Real corner case. And folks who don't want the foundational
stuff exclude it.

I can see that working out pretty well.

Does logging belong in web then then? Still seems like something that
even the uber-minimalists would want. I ask because it bugs me that we
have two meanings now for "core" -- the old "core" notion that was the
true core with zero subsystems, and now this new wildfly-core dist,
which has subsystems.

>
>
>
> Fernando Nasser wrote:
>> Shouldn't it be like an onion?
>>
>> A more bare core.  A Core with monitoring capabilities.  And so on.
>>
>>
>> On 2014-07-09, 2:27 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>>> My earlier reply on this thread was in the branch focused on the
>>> technical detail of how the dependency arises. Which should be fixed;
>>> sounds like that's happening.
>>>
>>> On the broader question of where stuff belongs, JMX is an interesting
>>> case. Lots of users will want JMX. A number of subsystems have optional
>>> dependencies on it, including some like jgroups and infinispan that may
>>> end up being part of their own dist, separate from the full dist.
>>>
>>> So what's the plan for catering to these needs? Ship it in the full dist
>>> and those who want it depend on the full dist but configure the
>>> provisioning tool to only grab the JMX modules? Make it a micro-dist?
>>> Maybe a mini-dist packaged with some others? JMX, system-jmx, pojo as
>>> the "deploy your own services" dist? (I don't like that last one, just
>>> brainstorming...)
>>>
>>> On 7/9/14, 5:47 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>>>> Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed in
>>>> core?
>>>>
>>>> Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is a
>>>> subsystem all must have.
>>>>
>>> Manageable logging isn't either. Lots of people used logging.properties
>>> for a long time.
>>>
>>> Note I'm not advocating removing logging from core; I'm just saying that
>>> no subsystem has to be in core if that's the criteria.
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Darran Lofthouse.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>


--
Brian Stansberry
Senior Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Andrig Miller
In reply to this post by Brian Stansberry
+1000.

The subsystem management API is what everyone should be using, and not JMX.

Andy

----- Original Message -----

> From: "Brian Stansberry" <[hidden email]>
> To: "John Patton" <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 1:12:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [wildfly-dev] Is JMX Needed in Core?
>
> If things you need are not exposed via the undertow subsystem
> management
> API, please file feature request JIRAs. Or even better, send a patch
> if
> you exposed it via the subsystem.
>
> On 7/9/14, 1:55 PM, Patton, John wrote:
> > I'd like to vote for adding it into the full dist and configuring
> > the
> > provisioning tool to grab the JMX modules.
> >
> > We rely on JMX for accessing specific monitoring metrics and it's
> > difficult to get at some of the metrics that used to be easily
> > available
> > in prior versions for some metrics.  We've had to jump through some
> > hoops
> > to get JMX working the way we need in wildfly 8 -- with the new
> > undertow
> > module, we had to write some code to expose some metrics that used
> > to be
> > part of the jbossweb module, like avgResponseTimeMS and
> > requestCount.
> > Would be awesome if JMX support was more complete and part of the
> > full
> > dist.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > John H Patton
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/9/14 1:27 PM, "Brian Stansberry" <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> My earlier reply on this thread was in the branch focused on the
> >> technical detail of how the dependency arises. Which should be
> >> fixed;
> >> sounds like that's happening.
> >>
> >> On the broader question of where stuff belongs, JMX is an
> >> interesting
> >> case. Lots of users will want JMX. A number of subsystems have
> >> optional
> >> dependencies on it, including some like jgroups and infinispan
> >> that may
> >> end up being part of their own dist, separate from the full dist.
> >>
> >> So what's the plan for catering to these needs? Ship it in the
> >> full dist
> >> and those who want it depend on the full dist but configure the
> >> provisioning tool to only grab the JMX modules? Make it a
> >> micro-dist?
> >> Maybe a mini-dist packaged with some others? JMX, system-jmx, pojo
> >> as
> >> the "deploy your own services" dist? (I don't like that last one,
> >> just
> >> brainstorming...)
> >>
> >> On 7/9/14, 5:47 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
> >>> Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really
> >>> needed in
> >>> core?
> >>>
> >>> Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it
> >>> is a
> >>> subsystem all must have.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Manageable logging isn't either. Lots of people used
> >> logging.properties
> >> for a long time.
> >>
> >> Note I'm not advocating removing logging from core; I'm just
> >> saying that
> >> no subsystem has to be in core if that's the criteria.
> >>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Darran Lofthouse.
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> wildfly-dev mailing list
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Brian Stansberry
> >> Senior Principal Software Engineer
> >> JBoss by Red Hat
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> wildfly-dev mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
> >
> > This message, including any attachments, is the property of Sears
> > Holdings Corporation and/or one of its subsidiaries. It is
> > confidential and may contain proprietary or legally privileged
> > information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete
> > it without reading the contents. Thank you.
> >
>
>
> --
> Brian Stansberry
> Senior Principal Software Engineer
> JBoss by Red Hat
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Stuart Douglas
In reply to this post by Brian Stansberry


Brian Stansberry wrote:

> On 7/9/14, 1:59 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>> The problem with that is that if you take it to its fullest extent you
>> end up with one subsystem per repo, which is not something we want.
>>
>> I am not sure where the best place for it is, even if it stays in core
>> it should be possible for the tooling to exclude it, same with logging.
>>
>> Otherwise I think the place for it to live would be the web distro, as I
>> think that people will definitely want to be able to use JMX to manage
>> that.
>>
>
> So the web build is becoming the spot where foundational stuff like this
> and Elytron come in? The core is uber-minimal for the folks who really
> want that, and then web has these things that lots and lots of folks
> will want.
>
> In the odd case where folks want this foundational stuff but not
> undertow etc, they can just depend on the web build and exclude
> undertow. Real corner case. And folks who don't want the foundational
> stuff exclude it.
>
> I can see that working out pretty well.
>
> Does logging belong in web then then? Still seems like something that
> even the uber-minimalists would want. I ask because it bugs me that we
> have two meanings now for "core" -- the old "core" notion that was the
> true core with zero subsystems, and now this new wildfly-core dist,
> which has subsystems.

I'm really not sure. TBH from a practical sense I don't think it makes
any real difference, its more of an idealogical thing.

I guess if we look at web as being 'all the stuff that people will
probably need' then it makes sense that logging, jmx and
deployment-scanner live there instead of core.

Stuart


>
>>
>>
>> Fernando Nasser wrote:
>>> Shouldn't it be like an onion?
>>>
>>> A more bare core.  A Core with monitoring capabilities.  And so on.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2014-07-09, 2:27 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>>>> My earlier reply on this thread was in the branch focused on the
>>>> technical detail of how the dependency arises. Which should be fixed;
>>>> sounds like that's happening.
>>>>
>>>> On the broader question of where stuff belongs, JMX is an interesting
>>>> case. Lots of users will want JMX. A number of subsystems have optional
>>>> dependencies on it, including some like jgroups and infinispan that may
>>>> end up being part of their own dist, separate from the full dist.
>>>>
>>>> So what's the plan for catering to these needs? Ship it in the full dist
>>>> and those who want it depend on the full dist but configure the
>>>> provisioning tool to only grab the JMX modules? Make it a micro-dist?
>>>> Maybe a mini-dist packaged with some others? JMX, system-jmx, pojo as
>>>> the "deploy your own services" dist? (I don't like that last one, just
>>>> brainstorming...)
>>>>
>>>> On 7/9/14, 5:47 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>>>>> Working with the split repo just questioning if JMX is really needed in
>>>>> core?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whilst most distributions would include it I am not convinced it is a
>>>>> subsystem all must have.
>>>>>
>>>> Manageable logging isn't either. Lots of people used logging.properties
>>>> for a long time.
>>>>
>>>> Note I'm not advocating removing logging from core; I'm just saying that
>>>> no subsystem has to be in core if that's the criteria.
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Darran Lofthouse.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

jtgreene
Administrator

On Jul 9, 2014, at 3:09 PM, Stuart Douglas <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Brian Stansberry wrote:
>> On 7/9/14, 1:59 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>> The problem with that is that if you take it to its fullest extent you
>>> end up with one subsystem per repo, which is not something we want.
>>>
>>> I am not sure where the best place for it is, even if it stays in core
>>> it should be possible for the tooling to exclude it, same with logging.
>>>
>>> Otherwise I think the place for it to live would be the web distro, as I
>>> think that people will definitely want to be able to use JMX to manage
>>> that.
>>>
>>
>> So the web build is becoming the spot where foundational stuff like this
>> and Elytron come in? The core is uber-minimal for the folks who really
>> want that, and then web has these things that lots and lots of folks
>> will want.
>>
>> In the odd case where folks want this foundational stuff but not
>> undertow etc, they can just depend on the web build and exclude
>> undertow. Real corner case. And folks who don't want the foundational
>> stuff exclude it.
>>
>> I can see that working out pretty well.
>>
>> Does logging belong in web then then? Still seems like something that
>> even the uber-minimalists would want. I ask because it bugs me that we
>> have two meanings now for "core" -- the old "core" notion that was the
>> true core with zero subsystems, and now this new wildfly-core dist,
>> which has subsystems.
>
> I'm really not sure. TBH from a practical sense I don't think it makes
> any real difference, its more of an idealogical thing.
>
> I guess if we look at web as being 'all the stuff that people will
> probably need' then it makes sense that logging, jmx and
> deployment-scanner live there instead of core.
 
-1 to moving deployment scanner and logging out of core.

--
Jason T. Greene
WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat


_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is JMX Needed in Core?

Brian Stansberry
On 7/9/14, 3:26 PM, Jason Greene wrote:

>
> On Jul 9, 2014, at 3:09 PM, Stuart Douglas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Brian Stansberry wrote:
>>> On 7/9/14, 1:59 PM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>>>> The problem with that is that if you take it to its fullest extent you
>>>> end up with one subsystem per repo, which is not something we want.
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure where the best place for it is, even if it stays in core
>>>> it should be possible for the tooling to exclude it, same with logging.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise I think the place for it to live would be the web distro, as I
>>>> think that people will definitely want to be able to use JMX to manage
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So the web build is becoming the spot where foundational stuff like this
>>> and Elytron come in? The core is uber-minimal for the folks who really
>>> want that, and then web has these things that lots and lots of folks
>>> will want.
>>>
>>> In the odd case where folks want this foundational stuff but not
>>> undertow etc, they can just depend on the web build and exclude
>>> undertow. Real corner case. And folks who don't want the foundational
>>> stuff exclude it.
>>>
>>> I can see that working out pretty well.
>>>
>>> Does logging belong in web then then? Still seems like something that
>>> even the uber-minimalists would want. I ask because it bugs me that we
>>> have two meanings now for "core" -- the old "core" notion that was the
>>> true core with zero subsystems, and now this new wildfly-core dist,
>>> which has subsystems.
>>
>> I'm really not sure. TBH from a practical sense I don't think it makes
>> any real difference, its more of an idealogical thing.
>>

I'd say it's more of a documentation thing. IOW I'm not so much
concerned about conceptual purity of the core dist as I am about having
the same word mean two different things in things like docs. The term
also appears in the management model:

/core-service=management/access=authorization/constraint=sensitivity-classification/type=core/classification=credential

vs subsystem specific stuff:

/core-service=management/access=authorization/constraint=sensitivity-classification/type=datasources/classification=data-source-security

It probably won't really matter though. People are smart and the ones
who aren't probably won't notice.

>> I guess if we look at web as being 'all the stuff that people will
>> probably need' then it makes sense that logging, jmx and
>> deployment-scanner live there instead of core.
>

I forgot about the scanner.

> -1 to moving deployment scanner and logging out of core.
>

And the gavel slams. :)

I love the sound of the gavel.

> --
> Jason T. Greene
> WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>


--
Brian Stansberry
Senior Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
12