On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 07:43 PM, Peter Donald wrote: > On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 21:19, Daniel Krieg wrote: >> The strategy I took in implementing CatalinaSevak was to try >> to replicate a standard installation of Catalina so that anyone >> familiar >> with Catalina administration would be able to maintain CatalinSevak. >> Is >> this strategy acceptable in the long run with respect to Phoenix or >> should >> this SAR have a separate configuration/administration semantics? > > I think thats the way to go. In the future we may want to integrate > them more > (or we may not) but it would be best to be able to work of a standard > Catalina (or Jo or Jetty) because that way we get all the features of > the > servlet engine without trying to figure out a way to have some common > configuration format or whatever.
+1. wrt the Block vs SAR, I would like to have a way to have dependencies between SARs. It could be thought of as a Phoenix-in-Phoenix, just moving up one level from Block and App to App and Partition (or some other word). With CatalinaSevak running as a SAR, I would like to be able to deploy multiple other SARs in a single Phoenix instance that deploy a UI via a WAR using Sevak. I would follow Paul's thoughts on communication, using AltRMI or the like so that for scalability the SAR could be deployed in a remote phoenix instance. Perhaps ContainerKit can make this all possible.. an xinfo for a SAR :) -pete -- peter royal -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
