geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <>
Subject Re: GBeanName [was: svn commit: r154723...]
Date Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:07:13 GMT

On Feb 23, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> On Feb 23, 2005, at 10:59 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 2005, at 10:14 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> On Feb 23, 2005, at 9:24 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>> On Feb 23, 2005, at 12:23 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>> +1 on canonical name as internal string representation
>>>>> -1 on attempting to preserve whatever string is used to construct 
>>>>> the gbean name
>>>> I've been following from the peanut gallery, and like deployment, 
>>>> this seems to be a required topic for participation, so I need to 
>>>> ask :
>>>> Why not preserve the string?  it has no intrinsic meaning, does it? 
>>>>   And thus, why not let it be preserved as a convenience for the 
>>>> user?
>>>> That way, JSR77 name retain their conventional structure, for 
>>>> example...
>>> You're assuming that we build JSR77 names in a canonical format, and 
>>> we don't.  It is the job of the console to format a name into 
>>> something readable by a user.  IMO this is a tree and not a list of 
>>> 200 character names.
>> But I don't assume that geronimo is only used for things where JSR77 
>> is relevant...
>> I think it's really important that we remember how useful the 
>> Geronimo container is w/o J2EE...
> Very good point.
> Of course, I'd like to challenge you assumption again ;)  It seems to 
> me that your assuming people will use GBeans without JSR77 style 
> names.  JSR77 not only address exactly what names must be used (e.g., 
> j2eeType=StatelessSessionBean), it also defines a way to buildup a 
> name hierarchy.  The rules for the name construction define a natural 
> hierarchy that "falls out" from a few simple rules (I can go into the 
> rules if you want).  This means that you can easily define your own 
> types and a smart console will be able to build it into a tree.
> That of course means that someone would have to define their own 
> types, and the latest changes by David Jencks make defining your own 
> types the norm.  With his code you no longer declare an entire object 
> name for a gbean.  Instead you just define an instance name and type 
> (the type is actually extracted from the GBeanInfo).  So we are doing 
> everything possible to encourage the use of the JSR77 name hierarchy, 
> by making it the simplest and most natural configuration style.

But we shouldn't require it for the container.  Great for J2EE, but 
could be utterly useless for someone else.

> In the case where, they don't follow the JSR77 rules, the GBean 
> specific console would have to fall back to a default sorting rule.  
> This ugly display in the console would further encourage people to use 
> JSR77 names.

Or they would just fix the console

> -dain
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message