directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Reducing the complexity/verbosity of default server.xml (and custom configuration files)
Date Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:07:37 GMT
I haven't had time to look into this more but the xbean website does  
discuss how to simplify/customize spring xml with xbean, and it looks  
very easy to do:
http://geronimo.apache.org/xbean/custom-xml.html
http://geronimo.apache.org/xbean/editing-custom-xml.html

I hope to have some time to show an example soon but I'm not at all  
sure I will :-( but this is a starting point if anyone else wants to  
look at it.

thanks
david jencks


On Jan 9, 2007, at 3:02 PM, David Jencks wrote:

>
> On Jan 9, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>
>> Well, my position is a little bit different. Sure, too much XML suX 
>> (ml), but the problem is not that the configuration is huge, it's  
>> that we currently don't have tools to manage that (tools = GUI).
>
> I think relying on tools to deal with unnecessary complexity is a  
> pretty bad idea.  Look at jax-rpc for j2ee :-) -- it's IMO totally  
> unusable and incomprehensible because the xml is so awful.
>>
>> But with LdapStudio, I think we might have an acceptable solution :
>> - users who like to click will use it
>
> having tools is definitely good
>> - users who prefer vi and long text file will favor xml files :)
>
> bad xml will drive everyone away, as-simple-as-possible xml will  
> let everyone understand what is going on.
>>
>> However, there are so much things in the server.xml file which  
>> could be defaulted, that it might be a good idea to spend some  
>> time on this subject. I don't really see the point of having all  
>> the intercptors exhibited here. Maybe we can default those guys...
>
> defaults are good....
>
> We need some kind of xml, so I think devoting a reasonable effort  
> to making it really clear, simple, and expressive is a good idea.   
> I haven't used it myself but the xbean stuff sounds really good  
> from what I've heard.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> David Jencks a écrit :
>>
>>> I think James Strachan and Dain Sundstrom have cooked up some  
>>> stuff  that automatically generates schemas for each bean and  
>>> then lets you  use that customized xml for your spring  
>>> configuration.  It's  somewhere in the xbean project inside  
>>> geronimo.  I'll try to find out  more if there's interest.  I'm  
>>> pretty sure  activeMQ is using this  for its configuration.  From  
>>> what I've heard its a big improvement  over normal spring  
>>> configuration.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Jan 9, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Stefan Zoerner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all!
>>>>
>>>> There is some criticism about configuration complexity of  
>>>> ApacheDS,  especially from people who argue after a first glance  
>>>> at it. The  verbosity is mostly driven by the Spring Framework.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Reduce length of partition configuration
>>>>
>>>> Currently, partition configuration are very long, mostly because  
>>>> of  the many many indices for internal attributes:
>>>> ...
>>>>         <bean   
>>>> class="org.apache.directory.server.core.partition.impl.btree.Mutabl 
>>>> eIn dexConfiguration">
>>>>           <property   
>>>> name="attributeId"><value>1.3.6.1.4.1.18060.0.4.1.2.1</value></
 
>>>> property>
>>>>           <property name="cacheSize"><value>100</value></property>
>>>>         </bean>
>>>> (many others follow, in each partition the same
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> If it is highly recommend to use these indices, how about having  
>>>> a  special IndexConfiguration as a default, which only has to  
>>>> be  extended in order to adjust it to your needs?
>>>
>> yeah, sure, good point.
>>
>> Stefan, can you do a list of all the elements that could be  
>> defaulted ?
>>
>> Emmanuel
>


Mime
View raw message