I don't think there was any intention of forcing people to rename their files. The point is that if you need an explicit ordering this is the easiest way for the user to do it. If you don't need ordering then call it anything you want. So deployment order is something like
all xxxMyName.[j|s|w|e|r]ar/xml files all anyothernameinanyorder.[j|s|w|e|r]ar/xml files (apologies for syntax!) So this way you can specify stuff which absolutely has to go first and, if you don't care when it gets deployed, then name it whatever you like and it gets deployed after the ones that need to be first. (disclaimer: I was at the London training and I did vote for the numbering solution) c --- David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm with Jason on this one. I think asking people to > change their file > names to ensure deploy order is ludicrous. As I recall, > the unix sysv > numbering is all on symlinks, not the scripts/whatever > themselves. > > david jencks > > On 2002.03.14 18:18:46 -0500 Jason Dillon wrote: > > > > > > > > >deploy1/2/3 zero votes > > >000-999mywathever.xar:11 votes > > >deploy.order: 9 votes > > > > > >some just don't give a hoot > > > > > >ok the deploy.order was a good idea given by a > sweedish guy sitting at > > the > > >back of the class, it goes like this, put a > deploy.order that specifies > > the > > >order in which you deploy the files, it means that you > put for example > > ><deploy-order> > > >the-first-file.xar > > >the-second-file.xar > > ></deploy-order> > > > > > > > This is the same as explicitly listing your deployment > urls... which if > > you don't specify a file:// directory url the order is > as you list it. > > It is only when listing from a directory which causes > this > > dependency/order problem. > > > > >I kind of liked it, since it means you can put > additional information, > > but > > >sacha pointed out you can also put a order.readme file > and be done with > > >this, with the drawbacks that you could actually mess > up the names > > easily > > >(bound to happen) and that you needed multiple > deploy.order files to get > > at > > >the same result if you went for dynamic deployments. > > > > > >so the 000-999.xar idea is the one, if someone wants > to do it go > > ahead.... > > > > > > > I still think this is a really bad idea. > > > > We have a half functional dependency system... so > rather than fix is, we > > artificially force users to number there deployments, > or staticly list > > the urls to deploy. > > > > How does that make the JBoss deployment system easy? > One of the big > > features of JBoss is easy deployment... which this just > basically tosses > > out the window. The instructions for deployment go > from : > > > > "copy to deploy/" > > > > to > > > > "copy to deploy/, make sure that the file name is > prefixed with a number > > such that it is larger than all dependency deployments > and lower than > > other deployments which depend on it. If you are not > sure what the > > dependencys are then trial and error... or go look > through each > > deplopment descriptor and...". > > > > Why not just put the simple sorting bits back in UDS > until the > > dependency issue can be resolved? > > > > --jason > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
