On Feb 15, 2006, at 2:31 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Feb 15, 2006, at 2:04 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Feb 15, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Feb 15, 2006, at 1:23 PM, David Blevins wrote:
So we should call it something like:
<configuration>
...
<naming-properties>
<property>
<name>base-name</name>
<value>geronimo.maven:J2EEServer=geronimo</value>
</property>
</naming-properties>
...
</configuration>
Cause IMHO, having a <configuration> element with a <properties>
sub element implies something all together different:
[...]
Also I would prefer to not imply that these properties are
limited to only "naming-properties". I gut tells me that this
will be a useful extension place in the geronimo configurations.
Ok. I was under the impression via DJ's comments that these were
only for naming.
On Feb 15, 2006, at 10:59 AM, David Jencks wrote:
Dain:
I'm not sure about the names of name-keys and name-key. These
are really intended for use by the naming system and are rarely
used, so I prefer to name them that way rather than
"properties". What could other properties be used for? How
would we distinguish them from the ones for the naming system?
And your comment on using any naming system made me think my
impression was definitely write. I guess this isn't one of those
agreed upon things just yet.
So what is the general idea behind them? A generic bucket for
properties that are easily available to all gbeans in my
configuration?
I originally thought of them as having only to do with the naming
system, but after Dain suggested "properties" I realized that we
might think of something else to use them for in the future. They
would be available to parts of the deployment infrastructure such
as the naming system, but not really to any gbeans.
I like this. Nice, simple, flexible. It's great to have things
strongly defined and structured out for what is known, but nice to
have a bucked for the unknown to exist. Gives you a nice place too
look for stuff you may want to deal with better some day.
One other use case I could think of is "hinting" the deployment
system to maybe user more strict or loose rules, more or less
validation, more implicit or explicit reference linking. Just some
ideas, these aren't features we have yet obviously.
-David
