We can argue the details, but I agree with Peter about the current configuration
being very difficult to manage. If we are going to move to a web based deployment
to multiple boxes we won't be able to simply rely on URLClassLoaders pulling
down the current config files and expect them to work as many configuration
parameters will be specific to box on which the server is being installed.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Antman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] JMSContainerInvoker.java
> On 11 Jun, marc fleury wrote:
> > what I am hearing is that you want jbossmq/jboss/servlet configuration in
> > xml snippets in jboss.jcml, otherwise I don't see what it brings except yet
> > another layer of indirection...
>
>
> I guess it depends on you requirements. Mine is that I must be able to
> support a lot of installations of JBoss on machines I do not have
> complete controll over, such as ports, multihomed and such things.
>
> My experience from working with JBoss for almost a year now is that the
> configuration files changes a lot al the time, and it is quite hard to
> diff all these files all the time when a new release arrives, or when I
> have to go cutting cvs edge ;-).
>
> It is much easier to have one central property files wich controlles all
> those environment stuff (much like a preprocessor), just try to diff
> standardjboss.xml with all those hardcoded
> <RMIObjectPort>4444</RMIObjectPort>!
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
