geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Blewitt <>
Subject [JNDI] [Config] Thought
Date Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:55:16 GMT
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.


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?

View raw message