geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <>
Subject Re: Sample plan bits for configId branch, please review!
Date Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:32:02 GMT

On Feb 15, 2006, at 2:31 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> On Feb 15, 2006, at 2:04 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> On Feb 15, 2006, at 1:23 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>> So we should call it something like:
>>>> <configuration>
>>>> ...
>>>>   <naming-properties>
>>>>     <property>
>>>>       <name>base-name</name>
>>>>       <value>geronimo.maven:J2EEServer=geronimo</value>
>>>>     </property>
>>>>   </naming-properties>
>>>> ...
>>>> </configuration>
>>>> Cause IMHO, having a <configuration> element with a <properties>
>>>> sub element implies something all together different:
>> [...]
>>> Also I would prefer to not imply that these properties are  
>>> limited to only "naming-properties".  I gut tells me that this  
>>> will be a useful extension place in the geronimo configurations.
>> Ok.  I was under the impression via DJ's comments that these were  
>> only for naming.
>> On Feb 15, 2006, at 10:59 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> Dain:
>>>  I'm not sure about the names of name-keys and name-key.  These  
>>> are really intended for use by the naming system and are rarely  
>>> used, so I prefer to name them that way rather than  
>>> "properties".  What could other properties be used for?  How  
>>> would we distinguish them from the ones for the naming system?
>> And your comment on using any naming system made me think my  
>> impression was definitely write.  I guess this isn't one of those  
>> agreed upon things just yet.
>> So what is the general idea behind them?  A generic bucket for  
>> properties that are easily available to all gbeans in my  
>> configuration?
> I originally thought of them as having only to do with the naming  
> system, but after Dain suggested "properties" I realized that we  
> might think of something else to use them for in the future.  They  
> would be available to parts of the deployment infrastructure such  
> as the naming system, but not really to any gbeans.

I like this.  Nice, simple, flexible.   It's great to have things  
strongly defined and structured out for what is known, but nice to  
have a bucked for the unknown to exist.  Gives you a nice place too  
look for stuff you may want to deal with better some day.

One other use case I could think of is "hinting" the deployment  
system to maybe user more strict or loose rules, more or less  
validation, more implicit or explicit reference linking.  Just some  
ideas, these aren't features we have yet obviously.


View raw message