Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Configuration as Flat File vs. Registry
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:05:17 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <77C686785CD8324998F642387A94F74032261B@tobermory2.dynamicweb.co.uk>
Thread-Topic: Configuration as Flat File vs. Registry
Thread-Index: AcNhZ3E1XJV4TgbMSa2JWDNrx3dnHAAM+WVA
From: "Adrian Jackson" <adrian@dynamicweb.co.uk>
To: <geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org>

As the wiki points out (I know, because I put it there) you can get the
same benefits if you allow import/export of the config through an XML
document.

Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Foley [mailto:edward.foley@snet.net]=20
Sent: 13 August 2003 02:12
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Configuration as Flat File vs. Registry


Greetings all. I have been reading some of the postings and the wiki=20
concerning the configuration (registry vs. flat file). In a production=20
situation where there are multiple instances of a container running at=20
one time I find it much easier to have a flat (XML) file to hold the=20
configuration. I can edit the file in my favorite text editor, XML=20
editor or IDE and deploy it through the build process for the=20
application. Having to go through a GUI to edit the registry for each=20
instance would be a significant pain. Even if you could, theoretically,=20
point all instances to the same registry I may not have access to a=20
configuration GUI from the console I am working at. I am also not=20
convinced that the common registry will not become a major problem when=20
you have a failure of the container housing the registry.