On Sep 4, 2005, at 6:52 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
But what if there are two containers named MyJettyContainer, one
in Configuration JettyAdminStuff and one in Configuration
JettyUserStuff?
The J2EEModule property above is the configuration name, so you would
have two unique names one containing the property
J2EEModule=JettyAdminStuff and one containing the property
J2EEModule=JettyUserStuff.
This only works if the container and connector are in the same
Configuration, right? Because you don't have a separate
"WebContainerJ2EEModule=Foo". I guess I'm fine if we establish
that as a
convention (and it's how the console currently behaves), but I
don't know
how we'd enforce if it people start writing their own plans.
That is an excellent point. The JSR77 model is based on containment,
so in this case the web container would "contain" (own) the
connector. Using the JSR77 rules, if the web container name was:
geronimo.server:j2eeType=WebContainer,name=MyJettyContainer,J2EEModule=o
rg/apache/geronimo/Server,J2EEApplication=null,J2EEServer=geronimo
The web connector would be:
geronimo.server:j2eeType=WebConnector,name=MyConnector,WebContainer=MyJe
ttyContainer,J2EEModule=org/apache/geronimo/
Server,J2EEApplication=null,J2EEServer=geronimo
This is regardless of which configuration the connector was declared
the name must be as declared above to achieve containment. The name
building rules are specified in JSR77.3.1.1 Attribute Detail. I
don't think this is how we are currently building object names. If
we wanted to fully use the JSR77 rules for GBeans, I think we need to
add a parent="parentName" attribute to the gbean element in our
configuration xml documents. I'm thinking of something like this:
<gbean name="JettyContainer"
class="org.apache.geronimo.jetty.JettyContainerImpl"/>
<gbean name="JettyWebConnector" parent="JettyContainer"
class="org.apache.geronimo.jetty.connector.HTTPConnector"/>
-dain
