Rickard �berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Been thinking about the EJX GUI. Right now it's a 2-step process: first
>edit ejb-jar.xml with the EJB 1.1 plugin, and then add jBoss stuff with
>the other EJX plugin. If you want to make any changes you'll have to
>know which info goes where and load up the right plugin. This is a
>usability problem IMHO.
>
>How about this:
>Since the jBoss plugin is an extension of the EJB 1.1 plugin it would
>actually be feasible to make it a visual extension as well, i.e. one
>would be able to modify *both* ejb-jar.xml and jboss.xml through the
>jBoss plugin. This would make it much easier to work with I think, and
>much easier to keep in sync. For example, right now if you want to
>remove a bean you'd have to load up the EJB 1.1 plugin, remove it, save,
>open it again with the jBoss plugin, and save.
>
>Would it be better to be able to do the configuration through one UI
>instead of two? Would it be confusing? Clicking "save" while in the
>jBoss plugin would cause two files to be created (both ejb-jar.xml *and*
>jboss.xml).
>
>Comments please.
>
>/Rickard
>
Include JAWS, also, for those who need it. This is close to the option I
mentioned a couple of weeks back:
JF> An alternative might be to treat the ejb-jar.xml as
JF> providing a context within which other descriptors
JF> (jboss.xml, jaws.xml) could be generated,
JF> but this would introduce a degree of coupling between
JF> plugins which doesn't exist at present (and is
JF> probably best avoided).
RO> This is explicitly not allowed by the EJB spec.
JF> I meant a context in EJX (this is my Application, here are its three
JF> deployment descriptors).
This is OK, so far as it goes. But what is going to happen when we have
spyderMQ, a new pool manager, etc. etc.?
Difficult. Still, one step at a time! :-)
Justin
--
Justin Forder
