How about "deployables" in the root of the distribution tree. Also, to follow up on Peter's message in a different thread about using a default.war to document things... I really like that idea. It can be extended to dynamically show what services can be deployed by looking in the deployables directory and parsing the *-service.xml files for information. If those files contain the documentation for the service they provide, then there is only one place to update if things change. (Would adding a <description> element to the *-service.xml files break anything?) The cool part of this is that the documentation could automatically show the dependecies as well.
At another level, this whole interface could be extended to be a web based configuration thingy which can create configurations with the services you want. Maybe this should be part of the new JMX web interface. Are there any JSR's related to this? I haven't been keeping up on those. I am willing to work on something like this (for 3.1, not 3.0!!!) if there is any interest. --Andrew Hiram Chirino wrote: > > I like the idea. > > But what would be a good intuative directory name to put deployable > services that are not actually deployed??? I got a feeling this could > also cause some confusion. > > Regards, > Hiram > >> From: Andrew Scherpbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> CC: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Demo >> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:39:21 -0700 >> >> I see your point about a "minimal" configuration. >> >> But what about the idea of a directory that has all the deployable >> stuff. This could be a good solution to the problem of people asking >> (or having to search for) database *-service.xml files. And as I said >> earlier, it would allow people to pick the web container they want >> (if any). >> >> By building a completely self-contained package that requires minimal >> external stuff to be installed, the user's experience will be that much >> better! ;-) >> >> --Andrew >> >> Jason Dillon wrote: >> >>> Sure, though then perhaps an additional "minimal" configuration is in >>> order, so that the "default" brings up most of the needed >>> functionality. Or perhaps not... this is hard, because the minimum >>> required is on that there be a jboss-service.xml, you don't need to >>> configure any other beans... but this configuration is not very useful. >>> >>> I would support a minimal configuration, though I am not sure what >>> functionality that would contain. I would also support documenting >>> this somewhere, as minimal to you might not be minimal to me and so on. >>> >>> I expect 70% of the users who download this release to uppack it, >>> startup with the defaults, copy there .ear or .war and then load a >>> webpage in there broweser for confirmation that it all worked. >>> >>> I understand that you want to be clear about what is requried and what >>> is optional, but perhaps there is a better way to get this information >>> across than with a seperate configuration? >>> >>> --jason >>> >>> >>> Andrew Scherpbier wrote: >>> >>>> I have a suggestion on a related subject... >>>> From my current point of view (as a user of jboss 3) I would actually >>>> prefer a clear description of whatall goes into the deploy directory >>>> and why, and let me be the judge what gets deployed. This would mean >>>> creating the simplest deploy directory that has at least the ability >>>> to deploy a simple (no war) ear file that contains EJBs. >>>> In a separate directory, put all the crap that *can* be put into the >>>> deploy directory (and these need to be clearly described since the >>>> names may refer to things the user doesn't know about (yet)). The >>>> motivation for this is that as a deployer of JBoss, I want to make >>>> sure I only include the stuff that is actually used/required to >>>> deploy my user's applications. >>>> So, in other words, instead of making an example deploy directories >>>> from which a user might not know what to delete, provide the minimal >>>> config plus a clear description on what can be deployed. >>>> >>>> This might also be a nice way to include both Jetty and Catalina in >>>> the binary distribution. Let the user pick what they want. >>>> >>>> Am I making any sense to anyone? >>>> [trimmed for your protection] _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
