On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:06 AM, Ted Kirby wrote:
On 9/22/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 21, 2007, at 5:52 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 18, 2007, at 12:47 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Sep 16, 2007, at 5:36 AM, Karan Malhi wrote:
Fantastic! You the one, Karan ;) (easier to rhyme now that I
know
how to pronounce your name :)
;)
That first explanation at the top is too long. If you can
think of
another way to express the default, go for it.
Yes, I also want to express it clearly and concisely (wanted to
keep
Dario's feedback in mind too), and what to keep and what to get
rid
of. Thats why it will really help if I can get some feedback on
this
topic once I finish writing it.
Looking at your work in progress and wanted to give you an FYI..
The "{deploymentId}{interfaceType.annotationName}" is two
variables. The "interfaceType.annotationName" part is just one
variable, i.e. there is no plain "annotationName" variable.
Update the doc a little. Added the table of all available jndi
name variables and what they are.
We're getting closer.
Alright, I fixed up the doc more. I happened to run across a blog
entry of a guy who had nothing nice to say about OpenEJB in an app
server comparison simply because of our JNDI names (he was talking
about Geronimo 1.x/OpenEJB 2.x). I couldn't resist cleaning up the
doc and posting a link to it :)
-David
Thanks David. Your updated page
http://cwiki.apache.org/OPENEJB/jndi-names.html refers to a
not-yet-created page for openejb.deploymentId.format. Did you mean
that to refer to
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OPENEJB/Deployment+ID ?
We originally had it linked there but that doc still needs to get
cleaned up and it wouldn't hurt to have a page dedicated to
openejb.deploymentId.format. They may end up getting merge when both
are done (or in the process of doing both).
-David
