OK, after 1 month, and there is no reply and response.
Maybe I missed something at the first time.
So I commited the source on GitHub, check the two links.
I also moved the wiki page to GitHub (readme.md),
and changed the setting about SSH(now username & password can be used) ,
and update the sample to EAP 6.2.
I searched the developer forum, maybe this is the first contribution wish,
and because of the zero response, I really don't know how to move to the next step.
So please give me some advise on any anything.
Apologies for not replying to your first post. I think there must have been a problem at jboss.org when you posted -- I only received a notification for your second post.
Thank you very much for contributing this code. It looks like it will be very useful to a lot of JBoss users. I would like to get a few people to try it out to get feedback on how well it works for them and also see if they have any suggestions for additions or modifications. I will be happy to advertise the code to some potential users within the JBoss development team and will also blog about it on the Byteman blog.
If the feedback from users is positive then I would be very interested in bundling the code with future Byteman releases (i.e. add the source to the contrib tree and upload a deployable jar with each Byteman release). Would that be ok or would you prefer to maintain it yourself? Of course, if it is bundled then I would also need you to be added a project contributor and developer.
just a crazy thought - wouldn't this management of remote start/stop and remote injection better fit into arquillian byteman integration ?
Thank you for your response.
If the Byteman Framework got positive feedbacks,
I'm glad to conbribute the source to the contrib tree, and let it bundled with Byteman.
actually I used arquillian and byteman framework together.
Because arquillian remote container adapter has no lifecycle support.
with byteman framework, it's easy to mimic the server down failure by kill jvm or shutdown the server.
This sounds certainly interesting. I was thinking of something like this for our domain management testing in WildFly. I haven't had time to give it a try so far, so i can't say whether this can be easily integrated with our test runners and the way we control the processes. From briefly browsing the sources i guess the difference would be that it's all local and could be configured in the test setup, without the need for property files.