geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: Kernel Limitations
Date Mon, 05 Sep 2005 02:10:58 GMT
On Sep 4, 2005, at 6:52 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>     But what if there are two containers named MyJettyContainer, one
>>> in Configuration JettyAdminStuff and one in Configuration
>>> JettyUserStuff?
>> The J2EEModule property above is the configuration name, so you would
>> have two unique names one containing the property
>> J2EEModule=JettyAdminStuff and one containing the property
>> J2EEModule=JettyUserStuff.
>     This only works if the container and connector are in the same
> Configuration, right?  Because you don't have a separate
> "WebContainerJ2EEModule=Foo".  I guess I'm fine if we establish  
> that as a
> convention (and it's how the console currently behaves), but I  
> don't know
> how we'd enforce if it people start writing their own plans.

That is an excellent point.  The JSR77 model is based on containment,  
so in this case the web container would "contain" (own) the  
connector.  Using the JSR77 rules, if the web container name was:


The web connector would be:


This is regardless of which configuration the connector was declared  
the name must be as declared above to achieve containment.  The name  
building rules are specified in JSR77.3.1.1 Attribute Detail.  I  
don't think this is how we are currently building object names.  If  
we wanted to fully use the JSR77 rules for GBeans, I think we need to  
add a parent="parentName" attribute to the gbean element in our  
configuration xml documents.  I'm thinking of something like this:

<gbean name="JettyContainer"  
<gbean name="JettyWebConnector" parent="JettyContainer"  


View raw message