1. I'm hoping to work on the "one file for ejb config" very soon as soon as testsuite errors = 0 and the jca is marginally more stable (i.e. I quit changing it, it seems to work OK).
2. I think Sacha's point about granularity and location of changes and persistence is REALLY IMPORTANT!!!!! I've made a couple of suggestions about how mbean persistence relates to the files, only Jason responded. Basically I think to use mbean persistence we have to think of the mbean server like a database that remembers its current state, even over shutdown/restart. Then the xml config files need to be viewed as update scripts to this database. I don't really know if this is a good idea, it is certainly a different way of thinking than we have now, but I think it is worth considering and experimenting with. thanks david jencks On 2002.04.26 09:29:36 -0400 Sacha Labourey wrote: > Marc, > > I see your point and the interest of such a solution. Nevertheless, there > is another problem in fact that *currently* favor the multiple files > approach: persistent modification of configuration. > > Currently (as of 3.0), when you want to modify some > service/bean/datasource/whatever, you take its corresponding snippet, > modify it and zou, it is re-deployed. First problem: re-deploy should not > be, in some cases, undeploy+deploy. Second problem: everything that is in > the file is re-deployed. => if you have a single file, you redeploy > everything => we tend to have many files now because, currently, "many > files => fine granularity of redeploy". > > The second category of problems is about persistence of changes. If you > say: "F*ck the files, we go through JMX anyway", then any modification > made through JMX is *not* persisted (i.e. transient modification). This > is a problem, a real problem. The old solution of keeping the old version > didn't seem to work well, so it wasn't good either. > > => IMHO, the problem is not about one vs. multiple files, it is about > granularity and persistence of changes (=> granularity of redeploy) => > maybe the repository approach is a good solution. > > But *Currently*, with these issues, the multiple-file approach is the > best (only?) way to get fine-grained modification of our app server. > > Cheers, > > > Sacha > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : marc fleury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Envoye : vendredi, 26 avril 2002 15:19 > > A : Sacha Labourey; Juha-P Lindfors; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Objet : RE: [JBoss-dev] [JL] Is it time for a new enterprise solution? > > > > > > You do, this is the "production" file. > > > > There is the development files that really has their own snippets and > all > > and then there is the one big file for the production server approach. > I > > believe we can do this in several steps > > > > 1- as today we recommend locking down the server configuration > > once you are > > done with development by merging the jboss-services into one big STATIC > > jboss-services > > > > 2- merge ejb-jar jboss jboss-cmp in one big file so your beans are > > configured in one file. There are many advantages to this > > approach, namely > > you get rid of 100% of the indirection. Also it is all well.... in one > > page. We did discuss with David in January as to how to do that. > > > > 3- merge all of them, mbean,bean so the root tag is > > <jboss> > > <mbean> > > <bean> > > bla bla bla > > > > 4- the last gripe from the thread I am not convinced it had to do > > with being > > intimidated by mbean configuration files. I would have to think about > this > > one, there are problems with separating creation and configuration (but > it > > should be done imho) where the creation references a > > configuration by name, > > then the XML syntax usage should be simplified as much as possible, > avoid > > XML verbosity, nobody likes it. > > > > 5- gui? pfffff it would need to be a JMX gui in our case, why not, but > > everybody talks about these and no-one does jack. > > > > > > marcf > > |-----Original Message----- > > |From: Sacha Labourey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > |Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 5:55 AM > > |To: marc fleury; Sacha Labourey; Juha-P Lindfors; > > |[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > |Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] [JL] Is it time for a new enterprise > solution? > > | > > | > > |Well, it really depends IMHO. Would you really want to have > > |security information (users, groups, ...) in the same file as the > > |services (jboss-services.xml) ? I am not sure... > > | > > |> -----Message d'origine----- > > |> De : marc fleury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > |> Envoye : vendredi, 26 avril 2002 14:53 > > |> A : Sacha Labourey; Juha-P Lindfors; > > |> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > |> Objet : RE: [JBoss-dev] [JL] Is it time for a new enterprise > solution? > > |> > > |> > > |> I totally agree with the article, I believe we should merge our > > |> configuration files today, and get rid of the unreadable XML, > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
