On 9/22/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2007, at 5:52 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sep 18, 2007, at 12:47 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Sep 16, 2007, at 5:36 AM, Karan Malhi wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Fantastic! You the one, Karan ;) (easier to rhyme now that I
> >>>> know
> >>>> how to pronounce your name :)
> >>> ;)
> >>>
> >>>> That first explanation at the top is too long. If you can think of
> >>>> another way to express the default, go for it.
> >>> Yes, I also want to express it clearly and concisely (wanted to keep
> >>> Dario's feedback in mind too), and what to keep and what to get rid
> >>> of. Thats why it will really help if I can get some feedback on this
> >>> topic once I finish writing it.
> >>
> >> Looking at your work in progress and wanted to give you an FYI..
> >> The "{deploymentId}{interfaceType.annotationName}" is two
> >> variables. The "interfaceType.annotationName" part is just one
> >> variable, i.e. there is no plain "annotationName" variable.
> >
> > Update the doc a little. Added the table of all available jndi
> > name variables and what they are.
> >
> > We're getting closer.
>
> Alright, I fixed up the doc more. I happened to run across a blog
> entry of a guy who had nothing nice to say about OpenEJB in an app
> server comparison simply because of our JNDI names (he was talking
> about Geronimo 1.x/OpenEJB 2.x). I couldn't resist cleaning up the
> doc and posting a link to it :)
>
> -David
Thanks David. Your updated page
http://cwiki.apache.org/OPENEJB/jndi-names.html refers to a
not-yet-created page for openejb.deploymentId.format. Did you mean
that to refer to
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OPENEJB/Deployment+ID ?
Thanks,
Ted Kirby
