Ok then, no issue to not use caps ;-) 2012/9/10 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> about tag names it is currently "equalsIgnorecase" and i want to keep it ;) > > *Romain Manni-Bucau* > *Twitter: @rmannibucau* > *Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com* > > > > > 2012/9/10 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <jeano...@gmail.com> > > > 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* > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
