Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 22195 invoked from network); 11 Oct 1999 20:41:14 -0000 Received: from eastwood.aldigital.algroup.co.uk (194.128.162.193) by apache.org with SMTP; 11 Oct 1999 20:41:14 -0000 Received: from freeby.ben.algroup.co.uk (freeby.ben.algroup.co.uk [193.133.15.6]) by eastwood.aldigital.algroup.co.uk (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA09032; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:39:19 GMT Received: from algroup.co.uk (naughty.ben.algroup.co.uk [193.133.15.107]) by freeby.ben.algroup.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA27803; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:39:43 +0100 Message-ID: <38024AF5.CF3CD1D8@algroup.co.uk> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:39:17 +0100 From: Ben Laurie Organization: A.L. Group plc X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org CC: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: XML configuration revisited References: <3801D8DD.F6C88C1C@db.com> <3801EA44.C7F97663@algroup.co.uk> <38022BA1.34BC3E48@eng.sun.com> <380230B4.5BF68CCD@algroup.co.uk> <3802392F.23826909@eng.sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James Todd wrote: > > ...I think that until you think about how to integrate subsystems you > > haven't addressed any problems that don't fall into the realm of the > > bleedin' obvious(tm). To take a really trivial Apache example, some > > modules have some configuration that can appear within > > sections, and some that can't. The XDTD should define this, rigorously. > > Somehow. Ideally in a way that everyone thinks is good and is > > standardised. > > > > this is why i'm suggesting that we consider what it > would take to manage a collection of component/subsystem/etc > configurations as deemed appropriate by the component > vs trying to configuration everything nut and bolt a > hosting system is and/or may be comprised of in a manner > deemed appropriate by the hosting system. > > the hosting system need not know or be exposed to the > component details but instead provided the bare minimum > needed to establish the relationship and delegate the > work to the component. the work is in definining the > interface amongst the container and the component. I'm finding that a little difficult to parse, but assuming I've understood you, I think I agree. However, I suspect that all you've done is restated the problem without getting us any closer to a solution. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi