Oops, missed the group! -----Original Message----- From: Steve Brewin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 June 2003 16:26 To: 'Noel J. Bergman' Subject: RE: XML Entities in config.xml
Noel, The coding and most testing is done. I am currently soak testing scripted mailets and matchers and so far everything seems fine - had to associate a BSF engine with each thread to resolve some reentrancy problems and working out the correct scripting engine versions for Jakarta's BSF is a pain, but otherwise quite straight forward. > Although I like the approach that you appear to be taking, > you might want to > consider that Avalon keeps the XML parser and all generated objects > in-memory for the lifetime of the application. I haven't > looked in their > code to see why; I am basing this upon what I see when using the heap > profiler. > > If we are going to expand the size of config.xml, which your > approach would > potentially explode, then we should try to get more memory efficient > handling from Avalon. I took this approach rather than reinvent the wheel. If the scripts can be encapsulated in XML and XML supports including snippets, why not use it to pull in scripts or any other snippet of James' config.xml? If Avalon does not handle large collections of parsed XML objects well, we should work on getting it improved. With or without my additions, the size of James' config.xml is relatively small compared to many comparable ones, such as those used to configure J2EE servers or even the Apache Web server. > > Another thing to consider is reconfiguration. This approach > would appear to > require reloading the entire configuration to change a > script, at least with > a simplistic implementation. Dynamic reconfiguration is probably a topic in its own right. It would be great to be able to dynamically reconfigure several aspects of James. Most aspects come back to making changes to config.xml and having James recognize them. Not something I was proposing to address in this piece of work. > By the way, is that file url being interpreted relative to > the phoenix bin, > as implied by your example? Yep. Everything is relative to where the JVM is started from, from within 'run.bat' in this case. -- Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
