Hi Marc, On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, marc fleury wrote:
> we already support the multiple configuration thing by passing the directory > as an argument Yes, but you can specify only one configuration at a time. > run jetty runs with the jetty configuration > run tomcat runs with the tomcat conf > > what we change are the jboss.jcml (in 2.4) and the standardjboss.xml, this > is what they are they for (congrats on finding it out :) That was not really hard... :-) > That being said I never thought of the "mixed mode" where you need IIOP and > JRMP, making the invocation layer the root of the configuration sounds a bit > odd at this point (but we never know). I say let people use this stuff if > they come back with a request that looks vaguely like your idea then we > could probably think about the mixed mode. I fully agree. Please see my earlier reply to Jason. Just want to make it clear that we already have a "mixed mode" in some sense. Right now you can deploy an EJB jar into an JRMP container and another one into an IIOP container. Both at the same time and on the same running server. But the EJB jars must be different, of course! At least one of them must have something that says: "rather than deploying me into a container of the default kind, deploy me into a container of kind X". My idea would buy us just one thing: _the_same_ EJB jar file could be deployed into different containers within the same running server. Best, Francisco > > Again, switching mode is done at the command prompt already > > marcf > > |-----Original Message----- > |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > |Francisco Reverbel > |Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:10 PM > |To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > |Subject: [JBoss-dev] Multiple server configurations > | > | > |While working on the IIOP module, I have used an "IIOP server > |configuration" that turns IIOP into the default. > | > |Let me put it more clearly: by default, EJBs are deployed in a > |JRMP container. If I want an EJB to be deployed in an IIOP container, > |I must add to its jboss.xml file an element like > | > |<configuration-name>IIOP Stateless SessionBean</configuration-name> > | > |To avoid doing this for many EJBs, I created a special server > |configuration. This configuration has a modified standardjboss.xml, > |in which IIOP container configurations have "standard" > |container-names: "Standard Stateless SessionBean", and so on. > |JRMP container configurations have "non-standard" container-names: > |"JRMP Stateless SessionBean", and so on. > | > |This simple trick spared me the trouble of having almost identical > |EJB jars (the only difference being a configuration-name element in > |jboss.xml) to deploy in JRMP and in IIOP containers. If I start JBoss > |with plain 'run.sh', my EJBs are deployed in a JRMP container. If I > |start it with 'run.sh -c=iiop', the same EJBs are deployed in an IIOP > |container. > | > |I was wondering if this setting would be useful for others, then had > |an idea... Wouldn't it be nice to have both configurations active at > |once? I mean: if one could have two different deploy directories > |simultaneously handled by the server, by saying something like > | > | run.sh -c default -c iiop > | > |Want your EJB deployed in a JRMP container? Drop it in default/deploy... > |Want it deployed in an IIOP container? Drop it in iiop/deploy... > | > |Of course, the configuration-name entry in the EJB's jboss.xml (if > |present) would still override the server configuration. > | > |Am I too far off? Does this make any sense? Would this idea be > |useful for other (JBoss.net) containers? > | > |Best, > | > |Francisco > | _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
