On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 06:04:29PM -0700, David Jencks wrote: > Do you really want to be able to change all configuration settings? If > so, why? I think this is the wrong goal. I think there are a very few > specific config settings that should be editable after the > configuration is built, such as address and port for things that > listen. These, however, we are probably going to want to be able to > change without manual editing of any sort. In any case I don't think > its appropriate to allow people to edit gbean configurations directly > to change for instance the security permissions or ejb transaction > attributes. > > I've been rolling an idea around in the back of my mind of having these > few "attributes" not stored in the gbean data itself but obtained from > some kind of properties gbean that gets them from a local file. I > don't have a strong opinion on whether this is likely to work or be a > good idea.
I certainly know what you are getting at. Somethings users care about and somethings are just clumps of code built and handed to other objects. You want the things users care about in nice clean buckets that are well labeled and documented. You don't want them touching the other stuff. The way that I've done that in the past is to have a file that basically could "override" simple values in the configuration. Sounds like you're experimenting with something similar. > My main objection to non-xmlbeans based xml configuration code is that > I'm reasonably sure I will get stuck maintaining it. Based on past > experience, this is not something I want to do, ever, or ask anyone > else to do. I kind of think that the way we use xmlbeans is the reason you are stuck maintaining it. I think if we moved the data from xmlbeans or any other marshaller into a simple javabeans object tree, we might get more people working with the deployment code. I'd certainly be happy to volunteer. -David
