On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 11:26 AM, Matt Munz wrote:
Dain,Please see my recent email in response to Bill.
Yes. I think sf is creating a big lag between our emails.
I origionally started with this approach, but the more I thought about it, the more untenable it seemed. Based on my experience so far, I just don't want the server mucking with my deployment descriptors.I understand, but the admins do want this. As a developers, I won't be turing this feature on. As an admin, I most likely will.
I'm sure I can figure out the autodeployer ;) But look what you're saying. "Implement Persistence, modify deployer". Do you see how the two concerns are being tightly bound by this approach?Yes. If you modify a descriptor the auto deployer will have to be modified to not redeploy the file. Right? Am I missing something?
We don't need AOP to solve this one ;) -- just locate the persistence in a separate place (this is what it "wants" to do anyway, IMO -- consider standalone applications. I've never seen an application open up its jars and stuff info into them. They always use a separate DB).
I agree AOP is not required. I also I think we need this in 3.x.
BTW, I want to relocate this discussion to the Forums, as Bill suggests, but which one? I see at least 3 JMX-related forums!Sure but you will most likely loose my comments. The server is soooo slow that I quickly loose interest in posting. Hopefully the new hardware will fix this problem.
-dian
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE SSL Guide from Thawte
are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE
Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your SSL security issues.
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
