james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Harmeet Bedi" <hb...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Manual steps in Avalon Framework.
Date Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:41:01 GMT
From: "Peter Donald" <donaldp@apache.org>
> In the short term what does everyone think about relaxing the requirement
> that blocks be indicated by manifest. This requirement was mainly added in
> to ease management via GUI ... but we aren't quite there yet ....

I think it is a good idea. One could ignore the manifest.mf if it exists.
The same information exists elsewhere.

How about also having one file say blocks.xml that describes all the blocks
and from which xinfo and provide part of assembly.xml could be generated.

A DTD could be.
<ELEMENT blocks (blockinfo*)>
<ELEMENT blockinfo (service+,dependency*)>
<ATTLIST blockinfo name CDATA required>
<ELEMENT service (#PCDATA)>
<ATTLIST service  name CDATA required>
<ELEMENT dependency (#PCDATA)>

for example the XCommander could be specified like this

  <blockinfo name="xcommander-server">
     <service name="sockets">
     <service name="connections">

This contains all the information in assembly(sans config) and xinfo for
One could generate .xinfo and assembly.xml or even deprecate .xinfo and
assembly.xml for blocks.xml and config.xml.

Advantages would be
- less duplication.
- less chance of spending time on sometimes easy to miss configuration
- easier to configure. lower barrier of use.

what do you think ?


Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message