Regarding tag names i'd remove upercase characters at the beginning, not
really xml conventions.
+1 to start with something simple even if incomplete. It's always easier to
add things than to remove.

If we want to have something clean, complete with all suggestions in, I
feel like we won't have anything until months (years?).

Jean-Louis

2012/9/10 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>

> a little up since a minimum of this descriptor is mandatory for next
> release IMO.
>
> the webservices (soap/rest) config is today not very user friendly and i
> absolutely want an answer for *next* release. This is just a subset of the
> config we are talking about: properties tag + bean (pojo or not) properties
>
> any way to find a solution quickly about it?
>
> my thought is mainly we can use the following:
>
> <application> <!-- i'd ignore the name in the parsing for the moment -->
>   <Properties>
>      <!-- nested or not, just use what you need/want/like -->
>   </Properties>
>
>   <!-- here are the choices -->
>   <Ejb>
>     <Properties>
>        foo = bar
>     </Properties>
>   </Ejb>
>   <Pojo>
>     <Properties>
>        foo = bar
>     </Properties>
>   </Pojo>
>
> </application>
>
> Then we have the question of the module/war: my thought is pretty simple on
> it: to find a pojo/ejb in a war/module (from its id) or globally it is
> simply a search algorithm so we could then really easily accept both config
> (knowing the previous config will be used at least for 80% of apps). So for
> next release i'd go for previous format
>
> then this format is extensible and not fixed IMO so for me it sounds fine
>
> wdyt?
>
> *Romain Manni-Bucau*
> *Twitter: @rmannibucau*
> *Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com*
>
>
>
>
> 2012/9/2 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
>
> > hmm,
> >
> > if you speak about info tree it is only regarding perf for me.
> >
> > all the cloud stuff should be managed from a provisionning tool (puppet,
> > chef...). All other solution sounds pretty "manually done". The cloud
> point
> > if to keep the (dynamic) config in a single node then propagate it from
> > template.
> >
> > Well, do we have any choice at this point or are we still discussing?
> >
> >
> >
> > *Romain Manni-Bucau*
> > *Twitter: @rmannibucau*
> > *Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com*
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to