in the deployables directory and parsing the
*-service.xml files for
information. If those files contain the
I agree with Hiram, DO NOT put stuff that is not going to be deployed it is
confusing as hell. Use the EXISTING ONES.
But what would be a good intuative directory name
to put
Jason, PRECISELY, stop talking here is your solution. I would even say that 90% will
do just that does it work? so that is what you want to do. Do not design for the
10% rest, if they are serious they will figure it out in 10 minutes. But the 90%
lazy mass, is our real audience, design
I thank You for the invitation to crack You open ... but I have to pass and
give You a raincheck for now ...
;-)
on 11-04-2 03.06, Jason Dillon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your deployables is quite Queen'ish :-)
it is of some importence how and why we choose a certain word to give
on 11-04-2 03.47, Jason Dillon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After a bit more thought I think that a minimal server config is
really pointless, though I do think we need to document it somewhere.
Could the configuration folders named default also contain a simple
default_conf_doc.war that would
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
on 10-04-2 18.50, Andrew Scherpbier at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about deployables in the root of the distribution tree.
close but ...
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
scenario: when U dload . one wants instant gratification
( I know Me want ) ...
So HOW ARE U GOING TO DO THAT JASON ... without help ?
***
The People that trained me said - it is ready when it is ready ...
I am willing to work on something like this (for 3.1, not 3.0!!!) if
there is any
on 10-04-2 18.50, Andrew Scherpbier at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about deployables in the root of the distribution tree.
close but ...
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
Peter Fagerlund wrote:
scenario: when U dload . one wants instant gratification
( I know Me want ) ...
So HOW ARE U GOING TO DO THAT JASON ... without help ?
What? You are a crack smoker. I have not idea what you are talking
about... =?
--jason
Peter Fagerlund wrote:
on 10-04-2 18.50, Andrew Scherpbier at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about deployables in the root of the distribution tree.
close but ...
but what?
Maybe available-services or possible-services
Also, to follow up on Peter's message in a different thread about
Your deployables is quite Queen'ish :-)
it is of some importence how and why we choose a certain word to give
meaning of purpose ... a word is a container of a concept ... then it
could becomme cultural ... if You are not aware ... beware ...
peter_f translation:
I don't like the word
Lets not talk about what names you want to use, it is plain silly and
pointless.
I imagine that if we do anything along these lines, we will provide one
or two seperate configuration directories under server/, then either
provide a toplevel examples/ or something similar under docs/.
But
Do you mean a demo or example configuration for the server? I think
that a demo module under jboss-all is not appropriate, but a demo or
example configuration under server/ is certainly do able. There was
talk awhile ago about how to best organize this. I have not implemented
anything since
on 11-04-2 01.21, Jason Dillon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean a demo or example configuration for the server? I think
that a demo module under jboss-all is not appropriate, but a demo or
example configuration under server/ is certainly do able. There was
talk awhile ago about how
I would prefer to keep any additional configurations that ship with the
release to a minimum. I think that three configs: default, advanced
and example will cover what we need and won't add much extra
confusion. I expect that clustering would go into the advanced
configuration.
--jason
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
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
and discuss what you
can take out in the docu.
Have fun - Andy
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Scherpbier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Demo
I see your point about a minimal
PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Demo
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
