geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Sisson <jrsis...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Sample plan bits for configId branch, please review!
Date Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:07:51 GMT
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 am wondering whether having both naming properties and other 
properties under the one <properties> element may make it difficult for 
any tools (e.g. a GUI/web based tool that can read/build plans) to 
identify and display the naming properties when reading the plans 
without hard coded knowledge of the property names used for naming.

John
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> -David
>>
>

Mime
View raw message