Just a couple curiosities.
Would moving the coupling between module builders to be coupling on
work objects achieve much as far as actually decoupling the deployment
system, or would it just introduce another brittle layer in the
existing coupling?
Any ideas on how we would dictate the order
I'm a bit confused about how you envision this working, so please take
my comments with a grain of salt :)
On Jan 3, 2005, at 1:05 AM, David Jencks wrote:
The current architecture of deployment might be considered to have
some limitations. It is not clear how to extend the system to deploy
Combining a couple of responses...
On Jan 3, 2005, at 9:28 AM, David Blevins wrote:
Just a couple curiosities.
Would moving the coupling between module builders to be coupling on
work objects achieve much as far as actually decoupling the deployment
system, or would it just introduce another
On Jan 3, 2005, at 11:04 AM, David Jencks wrote:
Combining a couple of responses...
On Jan 3, 2005, at 9:28 AM, David Blevins wrote:
Just a couple curiosities.
Would moving the coupling between module builders to be coupling on
work objects achieve much as far as actually decoupling the
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 11:04:25AM -0800, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 3, 2005, at 9:28 AM, David Blevins wrote:
Any ideas on how we would dictate the order of the deployment chain?
Either writing a little class like the ejb interceptor builders or by
some kind of deployment descriptor. If
On Jan 3, 2005, at 11:53 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Jan 3, 2005, at 11:04 AM, David Jencks wrote:
Combining a couple of responses...
On Jan 3, 2005, at 9:28 AM, David Blevins wrote:
Just a couple curiosities.
Would moving the coupling between module builders to be coupling on
work objects
I decided to split the discussion because it is getting too long to
read :)
On Jan 3, 2005, at 1:30 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 3, 2005, at 11:53 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
IMNSHO this is caused by our usage of XML beans. When I talked to
the XML beans guys at ApacheCon they told me to put
On Jan 3, 2005, at 1:30 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jan 3, 2005, at 11:53 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Jan 3, 2005, at 11:04 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I'm not sure I like that also. My thoughts have revolved around
having a single builder responsible for a module type and child
builders that can
