geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: User Configuration of ports, etc.
Date Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:52:00 GMT
On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:10 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:00 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> Excellent point.  I think that shipping an experimental  
>> configuration system as the default is bit risky.  As a long term  
>> idea, I think that a binary configuration system would be a good  
>> option, but I think in the near term we should focus providing a  
>> tried an true text based configuration system as the default.
>> Now the big question: Is can we deliver a text based configuration  
>> system before 1.0 or should we expand on Aaron's configuration  
>> overrider to fill in the gap?
> umm, it seems to me that you are twisting reality here a little  
> bit :-)  I think using anything other than the existing known-to- 
> work-although-sometimes-a-pain immutable binary configuration  
> system we have been using for a year+ is way too risky for 1.0.

um...  We don't have any one seriously using Geronimo, so no one  
knows if it really will work.  I and others have complained that it  
doesn't even work well during development.  Anyway, I just want to go  
on the record to say that the binary configurations as they stand  
don't work, so when we get users and they start complaining I can say  
"I told you so" :)

> Getting the very limited config db idea to work for a limited set  
> of easy to change attributes should eliminate much of the  
> unbearable pain of e.g. not being able to change the ports without  
> excessive risk, I hope.  If not, I'm willing to live with not being  
> able to change ports.

You're kidding? Right?  There isn't a server out there that you can't  
change the ports.

> A text based configuration system is not possible IMO with the  
> current state of gbeans, where we have lots of complex attributes  
> that really need to be serialized.  If we had nested gbeans or  
> their equivalent a couple months ago I would be much happier with  
> the idea of text based gbeandata serialization in the configurations.

I agree this it would be difficult.  I think we would be better off  
spending the time to develop a really good configuration overrider as  
stop gap.


View raw message