On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Rickard [iso-8859-1] �berg wrote:
> Hey
>
> I want feedback on two issues brought up yesterday: , and use of java:
> namespace
>
> 1. Configuration files
> Currently it is possible to have several jBoss configurations by
> copying/renaming jboss.conf/jboss.jcml to whatever.conf/whatever.jcml
> (as outlined yesterday). A better idea (IMHO) would be to put each
> configuration in a separate directory, i.e. "/conf/default/jboss.conf"
> and "/conf/mysettings/jboss.conf". This would make it easier to code
> services(=the filename is always the same and can be accessed through
> Class.getResource), easier to administrate (copy "conf/default" and
> you're good to go), and easier to understand (again, because the names
> of the conf files are always the same).
>
> So, is it a good idea to have directory-prefixed configurations instead
> of filename-prefixed configurations? May I have your vote please.
+0. I'm not a big fan of additional intermediate directories, but your
suggestion would certainly be convenient.
> 2. Today everything is bound into the default JNDI namespace. The
> drawback of this is that many (almost all actually) of the things that
> are bound have no meaning outside of the JVM, such as connection pools,
> security managers, transaction manager etc. I propose that they be moved
> to the VM-local "java:/" namespace. This would require changing the
> binding and the lookup places, but all in all that should be pretty
> minor.
>
> Does this seem like a good idea? May I have your vote please.
+1. Though I would also support java:jboss or java:system or something to
indicate to casual JNDI surfers that they should not be using the stuff
they see there.
Aaron
>
> regards,
> Rickard
>
>
