Hi,
"Rickard �berg" wrote:
> 1. Configuration files
>[snip]
> So, is it a good idea to have directory-prefixed configurations instead
> of filename-prefixed configurations? May I have your vote please.
I am strongly in favor of directory-prefixed configurations.
IMHO filename-prefixed configurations will be a pain in the *ss
to work with.
> 2. Today everything is bound into the default JNDI namespace. The
>[snip]
> Does this seem like a good idea? May I have your vote please.
No strong opinions on this one, but it might be a good idea:
The way it works now, we risk that someone does something
stupid, like having an instance with security-sentisive
information published the wrong way in JNDI so that clients
can get some secret information with a simple lookup.
People can still do stupid things, but if all the code they
see in jBoss is using "java:" for local stuff, there is a
chance that stupid people will also use "java:" for VM-local
stuff. And in this case it is not quite so bad as if objects
with secret information are published in the global JNDI
namespace so that clients can simply download the secrets
they should not have access to.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
