geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Sample plan bits for configId branch, please review!
Date Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:43:11 GMT

On Feb 15, 2006, at 3:07 PM, John Sisson wrote:

> 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.

I think we are going off the deep end here :-).  Currently the only  
use anyone has thought of for this is to supply the domain and server  
name components of gbeans in configurations with no parent such as  
j2ee-system.  I don't think anyone who has the knowledge to set one  
of these configurations up will have any problems doing it in say  
pico rather than a gui tool :-).  Really, if you are setting one of  
these up, you are setting up an entirely different kind of geronimo  
server, not just a minor reassembly such as going from j2ee-tomcat to  

david jencks

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

View raw message