avalon-phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: kernal.xml vs. assembly.xml format
Date Sun, 15 Sep 2002 02:02:04 GMT
On Sun, 15 Sep 2002 03:52, David Weitzman wrote:
> This is just something to consider.
>
> I've noticed that kernal.xml and assembly config files express similar
> information, but use a different format (<component> nested in <embeddor>
> vs. <block>).  One is parsed by DefaultEmbeddor, the other by Assembler.
>
> There are some distinct differences.  <component> allows you to specify and
> object's role, whereas dependancies in <block>s use bock names and
> <provide> to add stuff to the ServiceManager.  Assembler is also tied to
> the .sar format.
>
> But overall, basically, the files are similar.  Is this a bad thing, good
> thing, or just a thing?

At the moment it is just a thing. Note that kernel.xml also allows you to 
specify configuration data in xml rather than separately (ie in 
SAR-INF/config.xml).

In the future I think it would be desirable that the format become a lot more 
homogenized. When we get around to implementing 

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12411

I hope we will find a format that is consistent and easy to use. Eventually I 
believe that the kernel will be just a container that hosts other containers. 
So the deployment format of the kernel will hopefully endup being very 
similar to the deployment format of applications.


-- 
Cheers,

Peter Donald
-----------------------------------------------------
When a stupid man is doing something he's ashamed of, 
he always declares that it is his duty.
					George Bernard Shaw 
-----------------------------------------------------


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


Mime
View raw message