Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Can XBean split the configuration in 2 multiple files?
We currently have assembly.xml to declare how the component
dependencies/wiring and config.xml to fill in configurations for that
components.
I don't think so. I've had some experience w/ having deps and configs
in separate files and it has not been pretty. I've always liked having
the whole gestalt, right there in front of me.
We have non-programmer users: they only change the config.xml and they
probably never look at the assembly.xml. Only advanced users and mainly
developers will change the assembly.
I think we should keep this separation, but, at the moment, I only would
like to know wether we can keep this separation or not.
Phoenix currently provide this services to James:
1) Lifecycle (start / dispose / stop)
2) Dependency management (Service wiring)
3) Centralized Services configuration
4) Centralized Logging management
5) Multiple James instances in a single JVM
Does XBean provide all of this?
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes, I think. Can you explain in detail?
Phoenix provide this functionality:
in assembly.xml you declare and wire components and dependencies.
The components are then configured in a centralized configuration file
names config.xml where you have <component-name>component
configuration</component-name> sections.
4) No, thank goodness. Not that logging isn't critical. I like the
fact that XBean stays focused on a single area and doesn't try to be the
Swiss Army knife of server software. JMHO.
I think that we can deploy a logger service and let other components
depend on this logger service, is this correct?
Phoenix already provide a good logger service, we could port it, or
switch to another logging service (IIRC there is a log4j adapter that
expose log4j as an Avalon Logger, and this would work with no code change)
5) Yes
[...]
If you expect any of this to be included in the official James
distribution we should split the conversation for each change (XBean /
Maven2) and analyze the pros/cons of the change proposed and vote
about this.
I'm going to work in teeney steps anyway. I think that I'll probably
convert to Maven 2. This will help me understand James' setup and
architecture.
I'm happy for this choice because I'm really interested in maven2 and I
think this is a more clear task than pojoification.
I insist that pojoification itself is "almost meaningless" and
utopistic: we should discuss on the real steps that each one would
include in a concrete roadmap.
If we intend to discuss this now, we should start a new thread ;-)
Stefano
PS: Would the usage of Maven2 simplify the introduction of an
installer similar to the one used in the Apache Directory project
(InnoSetup)? I think James windows distribution should have a similar
installer/service wrapper.
Geronimo has an installer that is built using Maven 2. I don't know too
much about it.
It seems they have removed the installer before the 1.0 final. I
downloaded genorimo but I can't see the installer. It comes as a zip or
tar.gz. I see an M4 distribution as "installer".
I, instead, downloaded apache directory sources and from a *really* fast
review it seems that it should not be a difficult task to port their
installer to another maven2 "server" project.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
