I guess my point is, why do I need a tool to do something simple like configure a web server?
I rather like the Unix philosophy: human-readable and editable text to get things done. I just felt like server.xml (and web.xml too) don't lend themselves to that. Anywho. Ant does rock :) -----Original Message----- From: Timm, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 1:45 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: !oh yeah! Get the format right, and the tools will follow. I think XML was a great choice. No one ever said you'd have to manually type the thing forever. - Sean T. -----Original Message----- From: James Sieben (EUS) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 12:09 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: !oh yeah! You like server.xml? ugh. I wish they had stuck with some simple format for the thing, like the apache configuration. IMO it's a step backwards in server configuration for UNIX (not to be compared with the great leap backward that is Win32, and the total forece-feeding of GUI configuration.) Typing all that <servetcontext><servelet></servlet></servletcontext> just takes forever. Anyways that's my rant.
