----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Hammant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Avalon Development" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 3:44 AM Subject: Re: [phoenix] Relooking at distributions
> > > > > >>SAR-INF/lib/myBlockArchive.jar > >>SAR-INF/lib/mySupport.jar > >>SAR-INF/server.xml > >>SAR-INF/config.xml > >>SAR-INF/assembly.xml > >>data/my-random-datafile.txt > >> > >>I think above layout is good. because web.xml is placed in WEB-INF. > >>And extract server.xml, config.xml, assembly.xml. before we have > >>configuration templating mechanism. > >> > > > >I agree. > >Looks clean and consistent. -1 > > > It is clean & consistent, but : > > WAR files are about web-content. As such all that's at the root level > of the archive (HTML, JSP, GIF etc) can be said to be the primary > content. Stuff in WEB-INF/classes and WEB-INF/lib can be said to be > support. I.e. they are given a namespace (WEB-INF/*) that is unlikely > to be required in the directory structure of the primary content. I agree! > > I don't think Phoenix server apps are that category of thing. If I > agree with SAR-INF at all it's to replace the "conf" dir and no more. > That is, unless someone can come up with an example of a SAR files that > would need the root namespace to the same level as WAR files do. For simplicity sake I would put server.xml, config.xml and assembly.xml in META-INF directory. Support libraries would go in 'lib' directory together with block jars. > > Exec summary : Paul votes -1 > > Regards, > > - Paul H > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
