On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:10 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:00 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Excellent point. I think that shipping an experimental
configuration system as the default is bit risky. As a long term
idea, I think that a binary configuration system would be a good
option, but I think in the near term we should focus providing a
tried an true text based configuration system as the default.
Now the big question: Is can we deliver a text based configuration
system before 1.0 or should we expand on Aaron's configuration
overrider to fill in the gap?
umm, it seems to me that you are twisting reality here a little
bit :-) I think using anything other than the existing known-to-
work-although-sometimes-a-pain immutable binary configuration
system we have been using for a year+ is way too risky for 1.0.
um... We don't have any one seriously using Geronimo, so no one
knows if it really will work. I and others have complained that it
doesn't even work well during development. Anyway, I just want to go
on the record to say that the binary configurations as they stand
don't work, so when we get users and they start complaining I can say
"I told you so" :)
Getting the very limited config db idea to work for a limited set
of easy to change attributes should eliminate much of the
unbearable pain of e.g. not being able to change the ports without
excessive risk, I hope. If not, I'm willing to live with not being
able to change ports.
You're kidding? Right? There isn't a server out there that you can't
change the ports.
A text based configuration system is not possible IMO with the
current state of gbeans, where we have lots of complex attributes
that really need to be serialized. If we had nested gbeans or
their equivalent a couple months ago I would be much happier with
the idea of text based gbeandata serialization in the configurations.
I agree this it would be difficult. I think we would be better off
spending the time to develop a really good configuration overrider as
stop gap.
-dain
