To be clear...er
I am still not convinced that we need CAR files to make G work... but
we can look into this more later once we have a functional build and
most likely 1.2+ out the door.
We'll see... maybe i will see the light and hop on the CAR
bandwagon... or maybe not. I commented on this to get a better
understanding for while it was needed to make G operate (and still
pending some concrete details). My gut tells me that there is a
simpler way to get to the same goal... and we should examine if that
is possible... BUT, I'm not suggesting in any way that we block
progress (of the m2 build or anything) because of it.
--jason
On Jun 27, 2006, at 11:17 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 27, 2006, at 3:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Can someone briefly explain what the point of CAR files are?
They appears to be compiled plan.xml or something... but why do we
need this? Why not deploy the plan.xml and then let any
processing happen inside of the server... and eliminate the need
for any build-tiime custom CAR mucky muck?
I'm not real enthusiastic about debating this at length right now,
but I strongly object to removing the concept of car files. I'm
not thrilled with replaicing the seriailzed gbean content with xml
but don't object. I do object to requiring any builders to be
running in a server in order to start any modules. The idea behind
car files is to convert any kind of input configuration info into a
basic format that requires no thought to load and run. Starting
with the plan.xml at runtime will require making sure somehow that
any builders needed to interpret the plan are started. Right now
this is restricted to XmlAttributeBuilders and XmlReferenceBuilders
but the patch I'm working on for pluggable jacc will introduce the
possibility of using any namespace driven builder to interpret
pretty much arbitrary content.
thanks
david jencks
--jason
