geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <>
Subject Re: Removing attributes and refs from the config.xml
Date Sun, 26 Feb 2006 07:02:06 GMT
Why would anyone object to using XBean+Spring?

I think that sounds like a good idea.


On Feb 25, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:

> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and ask why we're trying to make all
> of this more difficult for users instead of easier? Requiring a user
> to: 1) gain knowledge of the plans used to create the CARs, and 2) to
> create a brand new XML file (config.xml) to define new functionality
> or override existing functionality seems ridiculous. The proposed
> solution seems to be treating the symptoms rather than the real
> disease.
> IMHO, CARs need to either be made more dynamic or need to be replaced
> with something more dynamic. The trouble I have with CARs is that
> changing them requires them to be fully rebuilt which requires the
> Geronimo source. Average users don't have the knowledge or time to
> deal with this so we offered the config.xml which we're finding
> doesn't really solve the whole problem either. If I had my druthers,
> I'd leave CARs the way they are and work to offer something more
> dynamic as a long-term solution.
> The idea I have is to use a standard XML dialect for configuration
> files - like XBean which currently requires Spring. I'm sure that this
> idea won't have many fans, but it's an easy way to reuse an existing
> solution to deliver an easier experience for Geronimo users which,
> IMO, should be our ultimate goal.
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\! 
> G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
> Apache Geronimo (
> Castor (

View raw message