geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject RE: [PATCH] [JSR-88] DConfigBeans, Take 2
Date Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:45:51 GMT
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Aaron
> 
> I'm working on checking this but I'm thinking that we could rename the
> package and split things up.
> 
> The 1.4 spec splits out a lot of the common elements into a j2ee schema that
> is included byt others such as EJB. I propose we redistribute the beans out
> of jar and into packages corresponding to the different j2ee XSDs.
> 
> With what you have, I'm thinking 'ejb' and 'j2ee'

	Well, first of all, I hope you're loking at the "take three" code 
even though you're referring to the "take two" message.

	Also, the DConfigBeans I wrote are probably fairly painless to 
move, but we'll have to be a bit more clever when we take the next step 
(which is to provide customer editors that present drop-down lists of 
options).  For example, if an EJB Ref will be in the "j2ee" package 
because it can be used by both servlets and EJBs, and it wants to climb 
the tree back up to either an EJB JAR (if an EJB deployed alone) or all 
the EJB JARs in the EAR (if deployed in an EAR), we'll have to figure out 
how to do this.  Anyway, I'm not objecting, just putting some thoughts in 
writing.

	What beans would move?  EJB/Local Ref and Resource/Env Ref, I 
assume -- anything else?

	Also, I assume you would want to split up the Geronimo XSD the 
same way, just to keep consistent.

	Finally, would you expect EAR code to still go in an "ear" 
package (which would be my preference), or would you want the EAR code to 
go in "j2ee" with the common code?

	Shall I submit a revised patch along these lines, or do you want 
to do it?

Aaron


Mime
View raw message