james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stefano Bagnara" ...@bago.org>
Subject Re: Switch to Loom 1.0RC3
Date Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:25:08 GMT
> > IMHO we still have the problem with spaces in the 
> config.xml: this is 
> > a real problem.
> But isn't there any simple solution to this 'space problem'?
> 
> I always thought(me naive) that such issues are just a matter 
> of parser configuration, cause we talk about XML here :).

Yes and no.
Avalon containers provide their own "Confiuguration" objects to the
contained application.
This means that the config.xml is a container file  and not an application
file and IS container specific.
We include a "phoenix specific" config.xml that works fine when read by
phoenix "NamespacedSAXConfigurationParser".
Loom use the same name "config.xml" and the same notation to configure the
applications but use it's own jar to handle the parsing.
This is not configurable and we would have to change the loom source code to
alter it.

> > Probably phoenix-trunk is the solution but I'm not sure it's stable 
> > and I don't know what the features of phoenix-trunk are: probably I 
> > should build the phoenix-trunk website from trunk to find 
> more informations.
> Wouldn't take far less time to investigate the 'space 
> problem' instead?
> 
> Considering that you have at least the fact that LOOM WAS 
> working for you, except that space? I think this is a big argument.

phoenix-trunk is also working for me now that Loom helped me fixing
james.sar incompatibilities.
And we don't want to distribute an application that "works for me": we want
to distribute an application that just works for most people.

> > You will just need to download loom, place your james.sar (latest 
> > trunk will create a james.sar compatible with 
> loom/phoenix-trunk) in 
> > its apps folder and remove spaces in your config.xml.
> > Just execute "run.bat" or "run.sh" and it works.
> This seems OK, but I still think that if LOOM is good, it 
> should be used by default, and those with FUD should just 
> investigate/test, and bring proofs, not just FUD, period :).

I don't know if LOOM is better than phoenix-trunk.

I started this discussion with a question "should we move to loom?" and I
haven't made a proposal because I need a more clear scenario to make any
proposal around this issue.

I just "currently" think that the space issue is blocking. I don't
understand why most of the replies have been around the <data-source> issue
and the fact the loom is dead that IMHO are non-existing issues, but the
whole thread is helping me.

Stefano


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


Mime
View raw message