Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 70008 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2005 18:10:08 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Feb 2005 18:10:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 70293 invoked by uid 500); 6 Feb 2005 18:10:04 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 70248 invoked by uid 500); 6 Feb 2005 18:10:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 70232 invoked by uid 99); 6 Feb 2005 18:10:03 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from smtp105.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (HELO smtp105.mail.sc5.yahoo.com) (66.163.169.225) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Sun, 06 Feb 2005 10:10:00 -0800 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.5?) (david?jencks@66.93.38.137 with plain) by smtp105.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2005 18:09:58 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <420656C2.10209@apache.org> References: <50E0B0EA-633C-11D9-8400-000D93361CAA@yahoo.com> <6876D8DC-77D6-11D9-9CF9-000D93361CAA@yahoo.com> <420656C2.10209@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <4DBF30D3-786A-11D9-9CF9-000D93361CAA@yahoo.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David Jencks Subject: Re: WARNING!! re: Request for backward-incompatible gbean plan change (related to GERONIMO-450) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:09:55 -0800 To: dev@geronimo.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Feb 6, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote: > David Jencks wrote: >> I think there was no response to this, so unless someone speaks up >> really soon I'm going to implement the change. IMO the sooner its >> changed the less confusion it will cause. > > Lost it in the noise - sorry. > > I find the construction stuff confusing, mostly due to unfamiliarity - > is there doco somewhere on what the new syntax is and what you can set > when building the name? GERONIMO-450 has some info. Basically, you can either set the name (currently namePart) or the entire gbeanName (currently name). If you set the name, then: J2EEDomain, J2EEServer, J2EEApplication, and J2EEModule come from the Configuration j2eeType comes from the GBeanInfo. In addition, the J2EEDomain and J2EEServer of a Configuration are copied from its parent configuration, or if it has no parent you must specify them in the plan for that configuration. For a gbean from a "service" (non-j2ee module) plan, the G2EEApplication is "null" and the J2EEModule is the configId. Are you also asking about all the methods in NameFactory that builder code uses to construct object names? Note that builders, such as the ejb builder, can set the type as they please, such as for the kind of ejb being deployed. > > I would suggest supporting "gbeanname" as an alias for objectname - > objectname makes sense for a JMX based kernel but back in Nov(?) we > were discussing moving away from JMX artifacts. good idea. Lets use it instead of objectName > > Finally, is it worth adding a hybrid mode where we mix in the JSR77 > parts but otherwise allow the user to specify the rest, something like > > > -- > Jeremy >