> we can do some thing like that Jboss does. In Jboss if you want to > deploy a web application either it should be put as .war file or under > a directory of which name ends with .war . > > i.e in axis2 point of view either it should be bar.aar file or bar.aar > directory. > > In my point of view always deployer should only map to an extension. -1 , if you think the POJO deployer it can handle both .class files and .jar files , so are you saying thats a problem. If we have the flexibility and if we doing that for a long time without any problem, then we should continue to keep it as it is. > In the above way it can support both expanded and single file modes. Hehe , seems like you are not happy with the current way , I do not know whether you know about the deployment mechanism we had before the deployer concept , and do you know how much of work JAX-WS people did to deploy their services. FYI , at Apachecon US 2007 we had a BOF session and their they mentioned what they are doing and the difficulties of the process , so as solution to that problem I introduced the idea of deployer , and whether you agree with me or not , it made the deployment so flexible and more extensible. And I do not see a any issues with that other thane the issue that Jarek mentioned.
Thank you! Deepal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
