Well the problem comes from the EJX file not being correct, so yes fixing it
would solve it.
But the fact that it broke points us to a simple way to make the deployment
more robust. That being said I think there is value in explaining the
jboss.xml file to people since it gives insights into the architecture, the
plugins and all, so ignoring it completely (as i was advocating in the
beginning) is not all goodness. As as been pointed out, we need it for the
jndi overwrite and it has value for advanced users.
marc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Luan O'Carroll
> Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 5:54 AM
> To: jBoss Developer
> Subject: Re: [jBoss-Dev] Advanced container configuration
>
>
> Wouldn't fixing EJX so that it doesn't leave a blank entry in
> Jboss.xml for
> the container configuration also solve the problem? The
> documentation could
> then simply refer users to EJX and ignore the details of the file.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "jBoss Developer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 10:30 PM
> Subject: RE: [jBoss-Dev] Advanced container configuration
>
>
> > In fact thinking some more about this, even in the case you DO
> change the
> > container configuration (say to use Tyrex for distributed tx, instead of
> the
> > fast lightweight JTS coming with jboss2) you would just specify that one
> and
> > not the rest. Again it needs to be done
> >
> >
> > marc
>
>
>
>
