I've been thinking about "Standalone server" schema https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBAS-8178. I thought I'd think here, because I realize I need a better picture and get different opinions.
In fact I have an impression that at some point standalone was not even considered. Anyway, if we are going to support it then what I would try to do wrt the server configuration is to make it as close as possible to the domain one making the most use of the same terms, types and elements. Avoding for the user having to learn another configuration options and structures, etc. It has to be in the same "language".
It could be just one file. I.e. it could be a mix of domain and host, starting with e.g. root element 'standalone' which could contain elements from 'domain' such as profiles, deployments, interfaces, socket-binding-groups, etc (removing domain-configuration and server-groups) and elements from 'host' such as interfaces, jvms and server (instead of servers).
This approach feels messy and confusing. If a user has to deal with both domain and standalone config and switch between the two, it seems to me it might be easy to get confused what option is available where or where it should go.
Another approach would be still keep two files. One would be an equivalent of the domain.xml - standalone.xml, for example, and the other one - an equivalent of the (domain) host.xml - (standalone-)host.xml, for example.
It may seem like too much config for a standalone. On the other hand, if all the user wants is a standalone and wants easily make similar compies of standalone then it might be convenient in a way that all you need to change is mostly values in (standalone-)host.xml.
It would be great if we could make the same host.xml usable in two modes (domain and standalone).
Both these approaches may still be too complex. As I said I'd like to get a better picture, perhaps, coming up with a different configuration for standalone (avoiding too much generalization and re-use of terms) would make it much simpler.