> Maybe I'm just really braindead here, but in 2.4.x, well, it's the tone that bother me, you sound like me
]:) > MBeans listed after the > AutoDeployer(implicit dependency) did not start until > the AutoDeployer > finished deploying everything. Why was this behavior > changed in 3.0? As far as I know David M was talking about making the mbeans in one file deploy and start together, I think this behavior is still useful, if it has been removed, why don't you put it back? ask david M that was a valid feature. > This is very very useful. Otherwise, mbeans > depending on EJBs and services > deployed by the AutoDeployer will have to list long > lists of MBean refs (is > this correct?) which are hard to maintain. yeah yeah we got it > Mercantec's application receives HTTP requests many > times per second by > hundreds/thousands of different clients. Jetty > should not be able to accept > HTTP requests until JBoss has completely booted up, > and this means all > AutoDeployed components. Otherwise, UI sessions > could come up with errors > in this time interval (2-3 minutes to load all our > beans), or our batched > XML-RPC requests could fail. Then code it biotch :) the fact is that being able to deploy independent services means that you almost must install/conf/start in one batch. Holding the steps in the scope of the PAGE XML being deployed is useful, Code it back, I think it took DavidM one day to code it, You supah man, go > Do you get what I'm saying here? YES, go ahead. David J, please make sure this behavior is still there when he puts it, don't remove that, even for the benefit of your dependency stuff. FUCK a little arbitrage never hurt anyone, aaarg this thread is just getting too long, too tense (although I guess I set the tone) and it is time we finish it. > maintain for a large application. Having implicit > dependencies by MBean > ordering in a file is simple and elegant and easy to > understand. Yes, yes, we agree, it is, if it was removed then bad, if it is then code it again, and flag it as "touch this and I burn your beard david" and basta. David J did relevant work, so stop bitching and fix it. David M you got 30 minutes? > specifying dependencies explicitly is very useful, > but I'm guessing is not > needed for 80% of applications. I wouldn't put down the feature, you have seen enough support here on the list for it, they are largely orthogonal (meaning there was no reason to remove it afaict) and we should really kill this thread once and for all. marcf > > Bill > > Bill > > > > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-dev > lopment ______________________________________________________________________ View: http://jboss.org/forums/thread.jsp?forum=66&thread=4977 _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
