On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Peter Donald wrote:
> If we were to accept all these changes then the deployment layout would be
> something like
>
> SAR-INF/lib/myBlockArchive.jar (note the .jar rather than .bar ending)
> SAR-INF/lib/mySupport.jar
> SAR-INF/conf/server.xml or SAR-INF/server.xml
> SAR-INF/conf/config.xml or SAR-INF/config.xml
> SAR-INF/conf/assembly.xml or SAR-INF/assembly.xml
> data/my-random-datafile.txt
Is that part of the "exciting and important things" you were planning on
doing to Phoenix? :)
I see nothing wrong in allowing Block Archives as .bar, .jar or, for all I
care, as .foo or whatever people decide on. But why prefer one name over
the other? Either specify exactly what the name should be or leave it to
the users, anything in-between creates unnecessary complexity.
Like in ant now I am told that the jarfile attribute is deprecated and I
should use file instead. Hell, why not just keep jarfile around and make
an internal pointer to file? From a user's perspective "file" instead of
"jarfile" is not really a cool new feature :)
I estimate we spend about 20 hours every week to change our applications
and build-scripts, so that they work with the newest Avalon. Of course
alpha means "can change", but it does not mean "must change, even for
micro-benefits" :)
Ulrich
--
Ulrich Mayring
DENIC eG, Softwareentwicklung
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
