Isuru,Problem I see here is, if we follow the same structure, we have to keep adding new elements to the configuration, which would make it complex to configure. So, IMO we should keep using properties (since these are optional elements) leveraging the extensibility of the Cartridge definition file and correctly document them all.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Isuru Haththotuwa <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Currently it seems that identifying a LB cartridge is done using a property in cartridge definition ("name": "load.balancer", "value": "true"). The Autoscaler looks at this to decide whether to assign a normal Cluster Monitor or a LB Cluster Monitor. If this property is not available, there is no way to do this.Well, the logic should be corrected (if it's not already there) to assume the value of this property as false by default. So, if you didn't specify it explicitly, its value still be false.
IMHO, we should not add this as a property, but as a mandatory field. WDYT of adding a unique property to identify the LB cartridge? Furthermore, we could extend this approach to uniquely identify the four basic cartridge categories as previously discussed in the mail thread with subject .
. A Better Model for Generic Types of Cartridges
--Thanks and Regards,
PPMC Member & Committer of Apache Stratos,
Senior Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc.