Thanks! Yes, maybe it worth creating a config-substitutions entries for those parameters. And one of the reasons for that is simplifying the version transition - till now, I had to re-investigate the necessary config changes for each new Geronimo version. With the variables, the config evolution could be more smooth as related to Harmony. I could file a JIRA for that.
As of server-security-config, I'm not sure I get your idea right. Do you mean creating another security-configuration bean for Harmony? I suppose we could have, say, two security configuration, like "jks-default" and "bks-default" and have the name of the one to start with in config-substitutions, right? Vasily On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:36 AM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is great news!! > > I glanced at the wiki page. I wonder if we should put most or all of > the configuration tweaks into variables in the config- > substitutions.properties file. > > The server-security-config is really just a dumb sample of how to > configure security, so it might be reasonable to come up with an > alternate harmony-specific one with the correct keystore inside. > > thanks > david jencks > > > On Feb 22, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Vasily Zakharov wrote: > > > > > Hi, all, > > > > Here I'm reporting that Geronimo v2.1 runs on Apache Harmony pretty > > well. > > See [1] for the detailed report. > > > > Shortly speaking, one have to tweak the config in three places, and > > tweak the startup a bit - and up it goes. > > I was able to browse the console freely and pretty fast, and deployed > > SPECjAppServer2004, but didn't test any actual load. > > > > There're also some issues with CPU and memory usage, but they have > > known workarounds for now or are not critical. > > Clearly enough, more issues would uncover under load, but generally > > the setup looks pretty healthy. > > > > Vasily Zakharov > > Intel ESSD > > > > [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDOC21/Apache > > +Harmony > > >
