Mark's right - a component like "integrated web setup" (regardless of when or whether its implemented) is appropriate to mount as a plugin to the broker, and needs the flexibility to be rerouted to a base URL. It's not broker setup to an end deployer - its OpenShift setup.
Eventually we will absolutely be required to share a number of common web UI components between the various parts of Openshift, especially web assets, layouts, common visual helpers, etc. Regardless of the app -> passenger -> route topology, we will start sharing the underlying code. That will allow us to make the right choices here.
The implication beyond that is we need to be developing and integrating *isolated* components, that can be flexibly moved across rails apps in the future. Things like namespacing our rails plugins (which we aren't great at today), ensuring we keep core library code properly independent, and thinking through cases like these as Luke has done.
Krishna: the reason I put my foot in was because it had stopped being about the admin console and had started being about integrating the web functions in the web application of the broker. The desire for another component could affect the decision.
In this context I'm just concerned with its presence, not it's requirements (other then being available and avoiding conflct.)
dev mailing list
dev lists openshift redhat com