> Deepal, proposing an improvement is not saying some idea that was > implemented some time ago was bad. That was the best we could do given > the information we had then, but this is about improving things going > forward. > Nope I did not say I am against the improvement what I told was we should not remove some working features , specially POJO deployer scenario. > There's no need to be defensive about decisions we made many years ago > .. no decision is perfect and I can name at least 10 major flaws in > Axis2 in hindsight. That doesn't mean we were stupid then - just means > that we didn't know better. Hindsight is always 20/20. > > What I'm thinking about is a way to make it MUCH MORE flexible and > user friendly than it is now. Clearly, YMMV. Yes of course and I am always +1 to make things more flexible , but without breaking what we have now. > > “When you're finished changing, you're finished.” > .. Benjamin Franklin. > > Sanjiva. > > Deepal jayasinghe wrote: >>> 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] > >
-- Thank you! http://blogs.deepal.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
