Wont you have to change both the runtime and builder parts, thus
needing 2 edits? Also, the standalone deployer is in just one plan....
how would you switch the builder in it?
I like this idea best so far, so despite these problems I hope we can
find a way to make it work.
david jencks
On Jul 7, 2005, at 9:04 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
Here is an idea for #2....
If we pull Jetty out into its own plan...the user just needs to edit
the config.list file. The j2ee-server-jetty-plan.xml can be the
default in the config.list...with j2ee-server-tomcat-plan.xml
commented out. If the user wants to swap, they just edit the
config.list and comment/uncomment.
Thoughts?
Jeff
Jeff Genender wrote:
+1 for #1. If you go for #2...we need to make it easy to
comment/uncomment, etc. IMHO, the less technically astute will not
like option #2...as they won't necessarily like to have to build an
assembly.
OTOH, if there is a way to easily activate one or the other via a
config file w/o the need to rebuild, this would make #2 more
acceptable.
Just my .02.
Jeff
David Blevins wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:32:03AM +0200, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
So what does the group want?
1) Separate builds
2) Jetty as the default
Both tested against TCK.
I was going for a pick one response. As in:
1) Separate builds (one jetty build and one tomcat build)
2) One build (both jetty and tomcat in the same build) with jetty
as default.
-David
