Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 10251 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2006 17:51:44 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Apr 2006 17:51:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 60888 invoked by uid 500); 28 Apr 2006 17:51:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 60826 invoked by uid 500); 28 Apr 2006 17:51:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 60814 invoked by uid 99); 28 Apr 2006 17:51:38 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:51:38 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of ammulder@gmail.com designates 64.233.166.179 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.166.179] (HELO pproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.166.179) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:51:38 -0700 Received: by pproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id t32so2279970pyc for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:51:17 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=FtKYH134b3IHxSKbSgeBFQ/zkFIBxX9gKCVDMx5LD5DXxokKw9++b3oNj3ZO3hsF5HnLz/mKvfumvZkFjg4nxFKZxQVx4AsJeFN1j1M4ZxIRk4IeM6IpNuHj1J/1VgWEKE7DcKR9H5NxFHfir7UocgUf0mPeUIoXVo896nDwVKQ= Received: by 10.35.49.4 with SMTP id b4mr2489189pyk; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.91.20 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:51:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <74e15baa0604281051n57d8b3ddj3288d1ead8496c21@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:51:16 -0400 From: "Aaron Mulder" Sender: ammulder@gmail.com To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: will multiple targets conflict? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Google-Sender-Auth: ea36a98cd2b56f0a X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Is there going to be more than one writeable config store per server?=20 Can the default be to deploy to all writeable config stores? Aaron On 4/28/06, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > On Apr 28, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Sachin Patel wrote: > > > Aaron, > > > > If no targets are specified by default the current help specifies > > that the the configuration will be deployed to all targets. Will > > this cause conflicts? i.e config store A may not be able to > > correctly resolve a configuration that can only be understood by > > config store B, as will be the case with the eclipse scenario. In > > the case that the app can be successfully deployed to both, how > > does this impact the application at runtime? If I hit an app in the > > browser which config store is it running off off? > > > > Does there need to be a notion of a default config store and if no > > targets are specified the default is used? I'm concerned with the > > eclipse-aware configuration store causing issues with a given > > server instance being used for "normal" deployment. > > +1 > > -dain > >