| Summary: | Change the modeshape configuration's for BRMS and SOA to use the same repository name | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [JBoss] JBoss Data Virtualization 6 | Reporter: | Van Halbert <vhalbert> | |
| Component: | Configuration, ModeShape | Assignee: | Horia Chiorean <hchiorea> | |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | ||
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | ||
| Priority: | high | |||
| Version: | unspecified | CC: | atangrin, kconner, vhalbert | |
| Target Milestone: | --- | |||
| Target Release: | --- | |||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | |||
| OS: | Unspecified | |||
| URL: | http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/SOA-3698 | |||
| Whiteboard: | ||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||
| Doc Text: |
There is an incompatibility issue when BRMS is deployed alongside EDS. In EDS the ModeShape repository is referred to as "EDS", whereas in BRMS it is "BRMS". This breaks out-of-the-box deployment of the BRMS war. To resolve this issue, the same repository name will need to be used for both configurations. The proposed fix is to refer to the repository in both configurations as "JCRREPO".
|
Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | ||||
| : | 781196 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-08-22 13:07:19 UTC | Type: | Task | |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | ||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | ||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | ||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | ||
Link: Added: This issue relates to SOA-3667 The repository name change in the brms.war that references the modeshape repository was done in the BRMS 5.3 release. The name change in SOA will be done in the SOA 6.0 release, due to backwards compatibility issues if released in SOA 5.3 or later (5.x). Does this still apply in the layered platform context and 3 different products: BRMS, SOA, EDS that each use ModeShape independently ? SOA-GOV-8 is currently uncommitted in the SOA ERD as it needs to be coordinated across the platforms and we need to understand the implications. Now that SOA are moving out of planning phase I will have to chase this up with the other platforms. Fair point about SOA-GOV-8. The other question is, if ModeShape will also be offered as a standard JCR repository, meaning that clients could connect & store data in it (outside of Governance). In this case, would we want a separate named repository for each product, or the same repository for all ? We have SOA-GOV-9 which is committed and states "Users will be able to change the name of the default repository for SOA so that it may be distinguished from repositories for other products like EDS." We also have SOA-GOV-10 which is Uncommitted and states "Users will be able to create their own user repositories." My comment on that is "Need more information as to what will be supported before status can be set". I need to chase up all the Uncommitted requirements and move them to committed, deferred or returned depending on what is possible (technically or time wise). As long as ModeShape in SOA & BRMS will not be exposed directly to clients, but only indirectly via S-RAMP, this is a configuration issue which relates also to https://docspace.corp.redhat.com/docs/DOC-144274 (separate downloads/packaging for RTGov and S-RAMP servers) ModeShape will only be offered via S-RAMP in the context of BRMS/SOA, so IMO this issue doesn't apply anymore. Closing, because this doesn't apply anymore in version 6.x of the products. |
project_key: SOA There is an issue when deploying the BRMS war to SOA because the ModeShape configuration in EDS names its repository ("EDS") differently than the ModeShape configuration in BRMS ("BRMS"). This breaks out-of-the-box deployment of the brms war. To resolve this issue, the same repo name will need to be used in both configurations. Unless someone would prefer something different, the name going to be used is "JCRREPO".