geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>
Subject Re: [XML][Deployment]POJO design?
Date Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:23:00 GMT


I've got a new patch ready, which I'll attach to the JIRA issue shortly
and unless anybody object I will commit tomorrow morning (NB. but not to
stop discussion of a dual tree approach).

JNDINameable has been renamed to JNDIRef to match the jndi-refGroup
in the schema.

EJB is not longer a JNDIRef, but RPCBean now does.   I'll look at
Aarons patch shortly to add support for jndi-name into the schema, as it
is missing.

JNDIEnvironmentRefs has been put back - and as part of that, lots more
naming convention stuff has been fixed.

cheers


Greg Wilkins wrote:
> Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> 
>> Greg's is much larger, but I have reservations about the actual data 
>> model.
>> For example, EJB extends JNDINameable but MDB's do not have a JNDI 
>> binding.
>> I am also confused about the meaning of JNDINameable as both EJB and 
>> EJBRef
>> are subclasses but the jndi-name element has very different meaning 
>> between
>> them.
> 
> 
> JNDINameable probably should be an interface and just mixed in when needed.
> I think it is not genrally applicable to put geronimo types in to the
> extends inheritance tree.
> 
>> We also seemed to have lost the JNDIEnvironmentRefs interface used by
>> ComponentContextBuilder so (and I admit I have not tested it) I am 
>> curious
>> about how it works.
> 
> 
> That's an oops that I fixed up in my tree.  I'll fix that and put 
> another patch
> in soon.
> 
> I think we are going to have problems evaluating the two approaches at 
> the moment
> as we have so little geronimo specific configuration in the tree(s).
> 
> What I'd like to propose as a way forward is that I commit my patch to 
> create
> a single tree (with the naming issues fixed and the issues Jeremy 
> pointed out
> addressed). As this is definitely the simplest solution with the least 
> code.
> 
> If Aaron and others really want dual trees, then a patch can be prepared
> against the single tree to move the geronimo config to a second tree, 
> and we
> can discuss that once we have some more geronimo specific configuration to
> help resolve various approached.
> 
> cheers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 




Mime
View raw message