Hi! Comments below...
Rickard �berg skrev:
>
> Hey
>
> I want feedback on two issues brought up yesterday: , and use of java:
> namespace
>
> 1. Configuration files
> Currently it is possible to have several jBoss configurations by
> copying/renaming jboss.conf/jboss.jcml to whatever.conf/whatever.jcml
> (as outlined yesterday). A better idea (IMHO) would be to put each
> configuration in a separate directory, i.e. "/conf/default/jboss.conf"
> and "/conf/mysettings/jboss.conf". This would make it easier to code
> services(=the filename is always the same and can be accessed through
> Class.getResource), easier to administrate (copy "conf/default" and
> you're good to go), and easier to understand (again, because the names
> of the conf files are always the same).
>
> So, is it a good idea to have directory-prefixed configurations instead
> of filename-prefixed configurations? May I have your vote please.
Yep, i think so. It makes me look at it as i am looking at a Java
Interface: I am working with the same interface, only the implementation
(read directory) behind it is different.
>
> 2. Today everything is bound into the default JNDI namespace. The
> drawback of this is that many (almost all actually) of the things that
> are bound have no meaning outside of the JVM, such as connection pools,
> security managers, transaction manager etc. I propose that they be moved
> to the VM-local "java:/" namespace. This would require changing the
> binding and the lookup places, but all in all that should be pretty
> minor.
>
> Does this seem like a good idea? May I have your vote please.
Seems more logical yes.
>
> regards,
> Rickard
>
> --
> Rickard �berg
>
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.telkel.com
> http://www.jboss.org
> http://www.dreambean.com
--
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.benefit.se/english
Or try Yahoo! Messenger, my nickname is: en_grillad_special
