Not sure I like this idea. Tell me why we need to support 3.2 and 3.0
descriptors in 4.0? I'd much rather a 3.2 component crap out gracefully in
4.0 than have to maintain 3 separate configuration mechanisms.
I wish we could get rid of the old stuff, but it is a requirement of the EJB 2.1 specification that we support 2.0 and 1.1 deployment descriptors. Also, one of the common complaints of the JBoss project is the changing of deployment descriptors and the lack backward compatibility. With XSL we can build the code to support on version and use style sheets to up convert old stuff.
I do like the idea of having a metamodel separate from XML parsing. BUT
STILL, it is quite easy to navigate the current metadata/XML marriage that
now exists in current configuration. Are you sure we're actually gaining
any maintainability by changing the status quo?
I thought one of Scott's requirements was to remove reliance on XML in the metadata model for 4.0. Scott?
-dain
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
