Yes that is correct. Changing one name in a well known file vs changing 20 names, several of which where in archives is a lot easier. Come on, the time you spent fixing the testcases would have been at least an order of magnitude less. It actually would have been zero because I would have just changed the mapping and not cared who was referencing the security manager.
Independent of the ease of change, the point here is why even impose an object naming convention that we don't really care about on the end user. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Scott Stark Chief Technology Officer JBoss Group, LLC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] MBean interfaces to EJBs > To make sure I understand what you are proposing... > > a global set of > > <symbolic-name> == <ObjectName> > > and with > <depends [optional-attribute-name="blah"]>some-string</depends> > > some-string is first looked up in the table as a symbolic name, and only if > not found we try to use it as an object name. > > This would certainly make changing the <ObjectName> half easier, but > changing the symbolic-name would be just as hard. > > This certainly wouldn't be hard to do, I'm still thinking about my opinion > on whether it would overall reduce complexity and maintenance. I didn't > find changing the object name for the DefaultDS all that hard. > > thanks > david jencks ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today! http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31 _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
