com> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MMS-Smtp-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1 X-MMS-Smtp-Auth: Authenticated As [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-MMS-Smtp-Mailer-Program: Macallan-Mail-Solution; Version 4.6.0.1
I like this better. See my other note as to updating the Welcome Page. +1 David Jencks wrote: > > On Oct 12, 2005, at 11:48 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > >> >> On Oct 11, 2005, at 7:41 PM, Dave Colasurdo wrote: >> >>> 2) Have a separate binary image for both the Jetty and Tomcat >>> webcontainers. I'm not suggesting biting off the whole task of >>> revising the assembly process but rather just merely having two >>> binaries each with a separate set of config files (config.xml, >>> config.list). This could even be a post-build step done on the >>> common image. This isn't very technically interesting but clearly >>> communicates to users that there are two separate environments and >>> they select the download that they want. Of course, this goes away >>> if/when the assembly revision is complete. >> >> >> +1 this is a reasonable compromise. >> > > OK, one more idea for the list... > > I'm into testing on making config.xml serve as both the attribute store > and the persistent configuration list. When this works, I think it > would be useful to have a command line parameter that sets the > location/name of the config.xml file to use (maybe a system property). > Then we could choose the configuration on the command line > > java -jar bin/server.jar -Dgeronimo.configuration=geronimo-jetty.xml > > Scripts could remove the need to know the file name :-) > > ./geronimo-jetty > > Would this be adequate and remove the need for separate distributions? > > thanks > david jencks > > > >
