Re[4]: [JBoss-dev] JNuke dev

[Alex Loubyansky]

BB This may or may not disappear.  The thought is to name the whole metadata
BB block for purposes of redeployment or undeployment.  Am I making sense?

Frankly, I don't see, currently. I am not asking to remove it, just to
clarify.

Thanks,
alex

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex
 Loubyansky
 Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:56 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: Re[2]: [JBoss-dev] JNuke dev


 I meant specifying them in XDoclet style, not XML.

 /**
  * @classAttr
  */
 class MyClass {

  /**
   * @fieldAttr
   */
  private int myField;

  /**
   * @methodAttr
   */
  public void myMethod() {

 BTW, could you please exmplain what is the purpose of the 'name' attribute
 in class-metadata element?
 In the forum or here.

 Thanks,
 alex




---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: A Thawte Code Signing Certificate 
is essential in establishing user confidence by providing assurance of 
authenticity and code integrity. Download our Free Code Signing guide:
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0028en
___
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development

Re[4]: [JBoss-dev] JNuke dev

[julien viet]

what about Nukes on JBoss shortname nukes4j ?

JB JBossNuke ?

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
 julien viet
 Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:35 PM
 To: Bill Burke
 Subject: Re[2]: [JBoss-dev] JNuke dev


 ok, do you have a name shorter though ? just nuke for instance ?

 BB Again,

 BB The type of developer writing content is usually a different
 calaber than
 BB those writing server software.  IMHO, it needs to be dumbed-down.  The
 BB reason why these things like postnuke become so popular is
 that they are so
 BB easy to hack for even the least experienced coder.  Copy,
 cut, paste.  Not,
 BB write xml, compile, jar, maintain ANT files, etc...  You get what I'm
 BB saying?

 BB This is just something to think about and I'm not advocating
 any specific
 BB approach.

 BB And again, BTW, JNuke is already trademarked.  You must call
 in Nukes on
 BB JBoss or think of a better name.

 BB Bill

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
  fleury
  Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 2:40 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JNuke dev
 
 
  I am all for JMX if it works .  Also the idea is to port the modules we
  like bit by bit to the sar format and this is CLEARLY a
 microkernel job.
  I think julien stroke on something interesting when he noticed the
  URL:command mapping to interfaces. What this means is that modules will
  expose interfaces as mbeans and that is all it takes.  Difficult? yeah
  for php guys, heck they must get EJB first.  But for us? we are doing
  the port anyway...
 
  let's go julien, speed speed my friend,
 
  marcf
 
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
   Behalf Of Dain Sundstrom
   Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 2:19 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] JNuke dev
  
  
   I think you are dreaming, if you think you will every recruit php
   developers to any java based solution.  Ben, remember the Orielly OS
   convention?  The php guys are perl guys.
  
   -dain
  
   On Tuesday, January 14, 2003, at 01:03 PM, Ben Sabrin wrote:
  
Are we developing this for the PHP community or the Java
   community?
Or more important for the JBoss community?  To me it seems that it
would depend on who you are targeting for your user base.
   If you want
to target the PHP users to bring them to JBoss, then Bill could be
right. If we do not care about the PHP community, we go
   down the JMX
way.  I think the PHP community will never want to do anything with
JSP.  They believe they have what they need to be
   successful and will
continue to innovate in their own circle.  For most of the PHP
community, what they have built is scalable to their needs.
   
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:jboss-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bill Burke
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 1:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JNuke dev
   
The only negative comment I have in using JMX is that the PHP
community
may
have a tough time switching over to Nukes on JBoss if you have to
have
a
package structure like a SAR or a WAR.  I hate to say it,
   but does it
need
to be dumbed-down for the PHP community?  This type of community
needs
to
be able to edit a JSP and immediately see the change on the
webserver.
Is
it possible to be all JSP based for themes, modules and
   blocks?  You
could
use a URL fragement and JSP:Include to decide what theme to use.
   
Just a thought.  Maybe JMX and such is the way to go.
 Just want to
give
you
something to think about.
   
Bill
   
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
   Behalf Of
julien viet
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 11:31 AM
To: SourceForge.net
Subject: [JBoss-dev] JNuke dev
   
   
hi folks,
   
 JNuke adventure has started.
After analysis of PostNuke I've began the development,
 still early
though.
   
 I keep everything that's good in PostNuke and throw all the shit
away :
   
 modules, blocks, permissions system, url system and themes.
   
 JMX is used for PostNuke components : themes,
modules and blocks are all JMX mbeans. Here are my reasons :
   
 A : general
   
 1.we need a component structure, why not JMX ? after all
   another forum say that's lightweight.
   
 2.theses components do not have to scale, i.e the number of
modules,
   blocks and themes is very small.
   
 B : for modules
   
 1.Ability to deploy/undeploy when application is running.
   
 2.It's easy to deploy additional modules as a separate
 deployment
and
   have them register in the same registry.
   
 3.PostNuke is all about invoking module functions.