> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Michiel Meeuwissen > Verzonden: woensdag 20 oktober 2004 11:14 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re: Request for Discussion: mmbase.war and ResourceLoader. > > > Ernst Bunders wrote: > > Another option is to support different locations, but use > only one at > > any time. People that want to run mmbase from a war will > have to deal > > with the inconveneance. In the case of loading config files as > > resources I would recommend a separate jarfile (ie > mmbase-config.jar). > > That would make code more complicated already, because I need > to implement a jar-loader right away. I opted for suggesting > a package only, and depending on normal class-loaders. > > Implementing loading configuration from jars directly can be > useful too, for example you could have the same files in > different jars, and still load them both (e.g. a > 'fieldtypedefinition.xml' in several application-jars, which > are then merged to 'the' fieldtypedefinitions' table inside > mmbase core). > > I have not done this yet. Happily, because you are already > complaining about things being too complicated... >
Yes, I did not mean using multiple configuration jars, just separate the configuration files from mmbase.jar > > > I agree it is really confusing the way it is now. This dous > not touch > > your proposal, but should be addressed. If the > configuration is in the > > jar, it should be removed from the config dir. Perhaps leave a note > > there to inform innocent users about the location change. > > Your problem is that the blob-dir setting is in the specific > database-xml (which grantedly is perhaps a bit odly located). > I think that wether you want blobs on dir is not specific to > a certain database, and should not be configured in the > specific database xml. I would suggest jdbc.xml. That is correct. Bothe the flag (blobs in db vs blobs on filesystem) and the location on filesytem are concerned. > > > > It depends on what you still see as configuration. E.g. a > > > file like 'object.xml' I don't see as configuration, it is a > > > resource, which is necessary for MMBase to run properly. You > > > should not delete it, and probably should not change it either. > > > > But in your proposal It could be overwritten by placing a modified > > version in a location with higher priority. > > Yes. I would not recommend that you do, though. > > > > > > > > > > Anyhow, I feel that some configuration (like also the database > > > 'configuration') is on the border of being configuration at > > > all, and I'd like to be able to put them away in some jar. > > > E.g. it would IMHO not be a strange idea to put an object.xml > > > in mmbase.jar itself, to ensure that you cannot not have it. > > > > I have twoo situations allready where I have to overwrite > the database > > configuration inside the war (both related to blob storage ). Which > > means I have configuration in three locations. This is no couse for > > happyness to me. I totally agree It would be much nicer to have all > > configuration in one place. > > That's completely what I suggest. In my proposal you could > place your postgresql.xml in WEB-INF/config, though perhaps a > default one will still be in mmbase.jar, making it possible > to also run completely without it. But for me that's not > configuration, it's a resource... Just like that you can run > mmbase completely withouth caches.xml (just because every > cache has default values for its settings). > > > > > > It would be nice to have a mechanism that ensures that you > can write > > configuration changes. But if too much complexity is the > price (with > > configuration all over the place and what to do if you want > to upgrade > > the site and so on) then how usefull will it be. I think it should > > allso be a concern to keep mmbase simple. Not at all cost, but as a > > consideration. > > I just want to give choice, and am worried about the > packaging project which is, it seems, going to be mainly > about writing configuration, so I would like to see it > working, also in a case where e.g. the complete web-app is > mounted read only. > > Did you look at resourceedit.jsp? Or the war I posted as an example? I must admid no. I will if I find the time. ernst > > Michiel > > > -- > Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' > Mediacentrum 140 H'sum [] () > +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US > > > > >
