On 2001.11.28 19:58:29 -0500 Julian Gosnell wrote: > > > Can a sar be run unpacked - I had the impression this was not so.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you take the jboss-service.xml out of the sar it won't know where its classes (jars) are unless you put them in a classpath element. If you do, you can deploy the jboss-service.xml and it will deploy the referenced jars. Right now, you can't autodeploy a plain jar, the autodeployer can't figure out what to do with it, so you'd have to put the jars in e.g. lib/ext or call ServiceDeployer programatically with the jar url. > > It would be nicely consistant if I could unpack my SAR and rebuild into > the dir hierarchy, touching the descriptor (jboss-service.xml) when I > was ready to undeploy/redeploy ? Right now the deployment process does in fact extract all .xml files into files. (although they go into a numbered directory...hard to find) Are you asking to be able to change this copy and have the dd redeploy? I think this is dangerously close to a hack;-) Are you sure you wouldn't rather just deploy the service.xml file by itself? It would be pretty easy to make it possible to deploy jars containing jars (like sars now, ear, rar have). Then you could easily have "jetty.sar" without the config file, yet have only one class package, containing all the jetty jars. Interested? > > Whilst we are on the subject of SARs, would it also be more consistant > to put the descriptors into a separate dir as in META-INF, WEB-INF - > only I don't know what it should be called - so forget it ! > > Lastly - assume that I am writing a service (Jetty) which wants to use > EJBs as part of it's implementation. Access to these EJBs needs to be > local and optimised. Does this mean that they need to be deployed in the > > same ClassLoader as Jetty ? I guess I am asking if we can have EARs > within SARs ? - or am I not ? Maybe Local interfaces will solve the > problem, but I would rather use optimised Remote interfaces, as then I > preserve the possibility of deploying several Jetty instances, all > talking to a single remote EJB server. I don't see why an optimised > Remote interface call should be any slower than an optimised Local > interface call, within the same ClassLoader - but then "I only do > eyes!". I think this would be a good idea, however it will have to wait a few days until the scoped classloader and ServiceLibraries classloader get more unified and a way to specify the scope of a deployment gets put in place. david jencks > > > Jules > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > > _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
