I thought Marc nixed this idea > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott > M Stark > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 6:29 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] We need more configurations in the distribution > > > That is fine with me. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Scott Stark > Chief Technology Officer > JBoss Group, LLC > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jason Dillon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Scott M Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 2:47 PM > Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] We need more configurations in the distribution > > > > Agreed. Did we ever decide on how to reorg things? I think that short > > term that if we go with Hirams idea of server(s) directory and leave > > lib, client and bin out on top then we can implement this soon. > > > > I like the idea of having a per server config lib dir to keep core libs > > seperated from examples/plugins and such, but i think it will take a > > little longer to figure out how to best mod the ServiceLibraries to > > handle such. > > > > --jason > > > > > > Scott M Stark wrote: > > > > >Rather than making less use of the configuration file sets, we need > > >to make more. We should be shipping with at least 3 configs: > > > > > >1. A minimal config that is just the JMX spine, logging, and JNDI. > > >No ejbs, JAAS security mgr, servlets, etc. > > >2. A basic J2EE config maybe a little leaner than our current default. > > >3. A J2EE + web services config. The whole webOS config. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
_______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
