avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject RE: [Phoenix] Configuration - to template or not ?
Date Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:04:37 GMT
At 02:44  16/4/01 +0200, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>I'm not at all sure if this is answering your question - but the following
>it a little summary of our experience to-date. Firstly, the idea above to
>have configuration files per block will be a big plus.  

Actually I wasn't proposing that exactly ;) I was actually just proposing
that config be in a separate file ;) We could still do a block per file I
guess by having something like

<!DOCTYPE project 
  [ 
   <!ENTITY block1 SYSTEM "block1.xml">
   <!ENTITY block2 SYSTEM "block2.xml">
  ]>

<configuration>

  &block1;
  &block2;
  &block3;

</configuration>

>Our current server
>assembly.xml file is currently about 1,500 lines. There are a few things
>that could improve manageability of the content:
>
>	1.  Ant style properties, i.e. the ability to define
>          a single property and have that property propagated
>          across several block configurations

We talked about adding constants with respect to Berins proposal but as we
never got around to that it never got implemented ;) It is especially
painful when you have to copy the same property into multiple places (ie
dns name for HELO message, interface to be bound to etc ...).

>      2.  The ability for one configuration file to extend
>          another.  The reason for this is that some aspects
>          of our configuration are great for developers who
>          want to extend the platform, other aspects are more
>          oriented towards the declaration of company policy.

Will Normal XML Entity level includes suffice (like above) or how about
something more? The only *clean* way of doing it was with something like
XSL which I am a little hesitant to implement at the moment.

>Beyond the question of how configuration information is managed, I seem to
>remember an email a while ago that was discussing the need to "unpack" the
>.sar file.  Aside from configuration info, is there a necessity to unpack
>jar and bar files 

in some servers yes ... some may include other stuff in .sar other than
code/config. (Say web-pages for web-server). How we do it is another
question ;)

>i.e. is it possible to load these resources from the .sar file directly.  

yep.

>If this is possible it would eliminate some level of
>complexity simply through not exposing what is happening at the file system
>level.

agreed.
Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message