geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gareth Bryan" <>
Subject RE: [JNDI] [Config] Thought
Date Fri, 08 Aug 2003 19:31:43 GMT
I like this idea:- but wouldn't it introduce a single point of failure?

(I guess the same problem will hold for any config node in a cluster)

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 19:28:26 +0100, "Philip Dodds"
<> said:
> I certainly agree.  The idea of holding all configuration information in
> a
> repository such as LDAP would certainly be useful within clustered and
> grid
> style environments.
> Philip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Blewitt [] 
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 6:55 PM
> To:
> Subject: [JNDI] [Config] Thought
> Why can't/shouldn't all configuration be stored in JNDI, presumably as 
> subdirectory (sorry, subcontext) specific to geronimo? 
> (java:comp/env/genronimo, or other such domain).
> JNDI supports pretty much everything you need -- contexts (one per 
> server/node/app/ejb/servlet/whatever) and an unlimited amount of 
> configuration entries (poolsize, max thread, min thread).
> And if the JNDI is going to be backed by Technology X, then that 
> provides a way for users to administer the data directly. But a app 
> configurator can just be based on reading/writing JNDI values.
> JNDI also not only supports tree-like structures, but also references 
> to other parts of the tree as well which would be ideal (for instance) 
> to represent relationships like 'App Y is in node Z'
> And lastly, XML extraction of a JNDI source would be a doddle, or even 
> be backed by the JNDI-XML server (though IMHO a JNDI-DB server will be 
> more scalable for read-write data synchronised across multiple nodes 
> for clustering).
> Can anyone think of a good reason why JNDI cannot/should not be used as 
> /the/ place to store config information? That way, the server will only 
> need one start-up parameter -- the JNDI server to connect to.
> Alex.
> PS Isn't this what Windows 2000 uses for its registry, and what Windows 
> XP uses to mount its Active Directory? Certainly, Mac OS X is moving 
> more towards a directory-managed approach (be it backed by LDAP or 
> whatever) -- so why don't we do the same for Geronimo?
  Gareth Bryan

-- - mmm... Fastmail...

View raw message