geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: Removing attributes and refs from the config.xml
Date Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:26:55 GMT
On Feb 26, 2006, at 10:46 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> Commit it and let the community implement the rest... seems to have  
> worked for at least one project I know of... sorta... kinda... um,  
> well nevermind.

I'd rather not.  It would break the build and I need to finish the  
configid changes.


On Feb 26, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:

> So I think we have 2 issues here...
> 1) What we want in the future?
> So the future holds XBean.  This is great.
> 2) What to do now?
> For now, I put in the empty="true" (yes *that* was Dain's idea :D -
> sorry Dain, gotta throw you back under the bus - hehehe - j/k).  I
> probably would rather have a value="empty" and a value="remove" and a
> value="null" attribute, or something along those lines...similar to
> Spring.  I just think we need an interim solution relatively quick,  
> and
> this was the best I could come up with.  Minimally we need the ability
> to "unset" an attribute all together...thats where the empty="true"
> thing came in.  But this brought up the ability to force a null and
> empty String to attributes and references.  I think using this  
> optional
> attribute keeps things the same as they are today, but offers the
> flexibility to pass what we need to, including removing the value all
> together.
> If there is a better idea, then please bring it up...I am open to  
> anything.
> Jeff
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> I think we are all past the old concerns.  The problem now is how  
>> do we
>> switch, which is not an easy problem.  On my laptop I have about  
>> half of
>> the server switched to use xbean-reflect, which is xml friendly,  
>> but I
>> got sucked into the configId problem.
>> -dain
>> On Feb 25, 2006, at 11:17 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>>> On 2/26/06, Jason Dillon <> wrote:
>>>> Why would anyone object to using XBean+Spring?
>>>> I think that sounds like a good idea.
>>> Well the objection wasn't to XBean and Spring per se - they weren't
>>> even in the picture back then. The objection was to using XML as the
>>> configuraiton mechanism instead of CAR files. Way back when CARs  
>>> were
>>> being suggested as the configuration mechanism, I entered the debate
>>> with the rationale that we should use XML instead because it's is  
>>> easy
>>> to change, it's easy to understand, etc. At that time, there were
>>> objections to this line of reasoning because of the overhead of
>>> parsing the XML on every startup. The argument was made that CAR  
>>> files
>>> would start up much faster. I have no idea if this is true or not  
>>> but
>>> IMO the advantages of using XML (and a well known XML dialect like
>>> Spring) far outweigh the disadvantages, especially when it comes to
>>> offering users a simple but very powerful experience.
>>> 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