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]
