geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul McMahan <paulmcma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Sample plan bits for configId branch, please review!
Date Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:45:50 GMT
>
> Paul:
> I don't quite understand your example.  While configId has the same
> xml structure as a dependency, it is the name of the current
> configuration, not a reference to something outside the current
> configuration.


In my example I just (lazily) copy/pasted the configId from higher up in the
DD which I suppose would have created a circular reference :-)  My intent
was actually just to show the suggested element structure, which would look
like:

<dependency>
   <configId>
      <groupId/>
      <type/>
      <artifactId/>
      <version/>
   </configId>
   <load/>
</dependency>

The rationale behind making <configId> a child of <dependency> (as well as
<environment>) would be to make a clear separation between identifying the
target of the dependency vs. describing the way that Geronimo should enable
it (start its gbeans, load its classes, import it, etc).  It would also
allow the dependency element to automatically inherit any future changes in
the schema for the configId element.

All that being said, I could certainly understand a counter argument for
mirroring maven's dependency element.  When it comes to tight integration
with maven I'm starting to "stop worrying and love the bomb" ;-)


  Do the load/include elements in this example work for
> you in place of the ambiguous scope in the previous example?


Yes -- makes sense, thanks.


Best wishes,
Paul

Mime
View raw message