Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support for system level health check procedures #37

Closed
heiko-braun opened this issue Jul 10, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

Support for system level health check procedures #37

heiko-braun opened this issue Jul 10, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@heiko-braun
Copy link
Contributor

From @jmesnil

The server runtime could also provide some HealthCheckProcedure that are not application-dependent (e.g. JVM memory, disk space, CPU load). These procedures need to be accessed from a HTTP endpoint not provided by the application (e.g. /health)

@heiko-braun heiko-braun changed the title Support for system level heath check procudures Support for system level health check procedures Jul 18, 2017
@heiko-braun heiko-braun added this to the 1.1 milestone Aug 17, 2017
@heiko-braun
Copy link
Contributor Author

heiko-braun commented Nov 6, 2017

@jmesnil Are you willing to draft a design proposal how these procedures could be discovered/registered? I.e. does it require an SPI for that?

@jmesnil
Copy link
Contributor

jmesnil commented Nov 14, 2017

I'm not sure we need to specify how these "system" health check procedures are discovered and registered. This is internal to the spec implementation (some might use CDI, others have their own injection system).
My initial intent with that issue was to highlight that all health check procedures were not coming from application code and we need to take that into account in our naming convention (e.g for endpoint URL, namespace for health check procedures).

Depending on the outcome of #34, we may simply state in the spec that some namespace (e.g. microprofile.system.*) is reserved for health check procedures provided by the implementation (or runtime).

@antoinesd antoinesd removed this from the 1.1 milestone Oct 12, 2018
@antoinesd
Copy link
Contributor

Relation with system should be considered in a broader scope and after 1.1 and introduction of #35

@antoinesd
Copy link
Contributor

This issue is vendor specific and cannot be addressed at specification level

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants