WFLY-14869 Add support for MicroProfile LRA #514
Conversation
|
|
||
| === Hard Requirements | ||
|
|
||
| The feature pack will integrate the LRA specification as the Galleon feature pack. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AFAICT the feature pack will actually integrate the Narayana implementation of the LRA spec into a new Galleon feature pack, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct, but we reference everything MP LRA related as MicroProfile and only Narayana specific parts as Narayana. I.e., the feature pack is microprofile-lra-participant. I don't think we need to change this. This is similar case as JAX-RS and RESTEasy.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe I didn't make my point. What hit my eye is that the feature pack should be integrating the implementation, rather than the specs. Or at least both, IIUC. But I might be missing something. WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think there is any new feature pack here. If we're talking a new feature pack, this would stay in WildFly Extras. This needs to be about adding capabilities to the existing 'wildfly' feature pack.
| === Hard Requirements | ||
|
|
||
| The feature pack will integrate the LRA specification as the Galleon feature pack. | ||
| The Galleon layer will be available for provisioning. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe s/layer/feature pack/ ?
Since below we state that the feature pack will make two layers available. WDYT?
| The second layer provides the capability of the LRA coordinator - a server which provides HTTP endpoints where applications may register as participants and then the coordinator | ||
| calls them back (via HTTP calls) when LRA finishes. | ||
|
|
||
| The feature pack will be placed amongst other MicroProfile WildFly feature packs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
s/feature pack/feature pack implementation/ maybe?
| specifics like unique node-identifier per running application server (WildFly). | ||
|
|
||
| As said before the LRA coordinator is based on the Narayana core (`transactions` subsystem within WildFly) | ||
| the LRA records and JTA records shares the same storage and recovery processing. |
| The Galleon layer will be available for provisioning. | ||
| The provisioned feature pack will provide all functionality defined in LRA specification for users in WildFly. | ||
|
|
||
| The feature pack will be split to two Galleon layers (i.e., two separate subsystems). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we add the new subsystems' names?
| + | ||
| https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/tree/main/testsuite/integration/microprofile | ||
| + | ||
| 4. OpenShift testing |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am thinking whether we should remove OpenShift from this community proposal and add such different platform test details to the product feature test plan. WDYT?
|
|
||
| == Overview | ||
|
|
||
| The goal of this RFE is providing the Galleon feature pack for WildFly which integrates the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@xstefank I don't think this RFE is about providing a feature pack. It is about integrating the LRA functionality into the existing 'wildfly' feature pack, by providing two new extensions along with Galleon layers.
There are a lot of wording changes below that are needed to deal with removing the notion that there are new feature packs here.
BTW I think this is just about analysis doc wording. The wildfly/wildfly#16547 PR is what I expect; it's about adding functionality to the existing 'wildfly' feature pack.
| === Relevant Installation Types | ||
|
|
||
| * [x] Traditional standalone server (unzipped or provisioned by Galleon) | ||
| * [ ] Managed domain |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not managed domain?
|
|
||
| === Hard Requirements | ||
|
|
||
| The feature pack will integrate the LRA specification as the Galleon feature pack. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think there is any new feature pack here. If we're talking a new feature pack, this would stay in WildFly Extras. This needs to be about adding capabilities to the existing 'wildfly' feature pack.
| The Galleon feature pack will be available for provisioning. | ||
| The provisioned feature pack will provide all functionality defined in LRA specification for users in WildFly. | ||
|
|
||
| The feature pack will be split to two Galleon layers (i.e., two separate subsystems - microprofile-lra-coordinator and microprofile-lra-participant). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is not wanting both a common use case? Is there a big downside to including both when you only need one?
IOW should we have just one layer? Should we have three, with the 3rd being 'microprofile-lra' that depends on the other two?
Having one still allows us to respond to user demand by moving to 3 in the future. Starting with 2 also lets us respond to user demand by moving to 3 in the future, but it also commits us to having 3.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Most common use case would be only the participant. Coordinator is a REST endpoint that can be started separately. Basically similar to message broker. About putting them together I don't know. I will need to see how users will use them. We can always introduce thrid microprofile-lra if needed later.
|
|
||
| == Release Note Content | ||
|
|
||
| WildFly introduces a new Galleon layer `microprofile-lra` for provisioning. It provides the MicroProfile LRA specification into WildFly. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This says there's one layer. :)
xstefank
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @xstefank (and thanks @bstansberry for your input on the feature pack topic).
The proposal LGTM, so I am approving it.
|
|
||
| === Nice-to-Have Requirements | ||
|
|
||
| Create a quickstart on LRA on how to use LRA with WildFly for https://github.com/wildfly/quickstart. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Has this quickstart already been created? Do you have the Jira link to share @xstefank ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no, still on my TODO list
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No problem, please consider opening the Jira issue, I would be glad to help you with that quickstart!
No description provided.