Dimitris ,

I am bit confused after reading the Forum Reference 
(http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=78376&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20)
 mentioned in that JIRA. 

In one of the posts in that forum reference, you mention that 

anonymous wrote : Maybe a simpler/better solution is to add in jboss-app.xml a 
new tag:
  | 
  | <module-order>implicit|strict</module-order>
  | 
  | with 'implicit' being the legacy behaviour, and 'strict' work by simply 
putting the the application.xml & jboss-app.xml modules in that order.
  | 
  | If modules from the 2 descriptors need to be arbitrarily mixed (e.g. a 
-ds.xml before an ejb jar), they can always be moved to jboss-app.xml (we 
already support this).
  | 
  | The only restriction is a module must appear only once in the 2 descriptors.
  | 
  | This is essentially the same with adding a new list (like unified-order) 
but we reuse the existing one, and add the extra flag to specify what we want.
  | 
  | On the other hand, I would argue that 'strict' should be the default, which 
is the "correct" behaviour, especially in the absence of a jboss-app.xml 
descriptor. If an old deployment gets broken, they can simply add the 
'implicit' flag. 

1) Has this been implemented, in the jboss-app dtd at 
http://www.jboss.org/j2ee/dtd/jboss-app_4_0.dtd i could not find a mention 
about this.

2) Considering the following entries in application.xml and jboss-app.xml:

application.xml:

<module>
  |   <ejb>myEjb.jar</ejb>
  | </module>

jboss-app.xml:


  | <module>
  |  <har>myHar.har</har>
  | <module>

Which module will be loaded first when:
 a) module-order is 'strict'
 b) module-order is 'implicit'

Thanks.
-Jaikiran

View the original post : 
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4028135#4028135

Reply to the post : 
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4028135
_______________________________________________
jboss-user mailing list
jboss-user@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user

Reply via email to