[properties]Why .properties instead of XML?

["Khrishnamurthy, Sankar" <sa...@attws.com>]

Hi,
Just made a successful build of Geronimo - albeit with
-Dmaven.test.failure.ignore=true..

Noted that some of the .conf files are XML files while there are still
some .properties file?  What is the rationale behind this?  Why not use
.properties files or XML files uniformly for every configuration file?

Also, why name some XML files as .conf files?  Can't they be named .xml
to easily identify them as XML files?  May be like {some-name}-conf.xml?
Or put all configuration files under a conf directory with XML
extension?
--
Sankar

Re: [properties]Why .properties instead of XML?

[Stefan Schuster <za...@gmx.net>]

Hi,

On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 19:11, Khrishnamurthy, Sankar wrote:
> Hi,
> Just made a successful build of Geronimo - albeit with
> -Dmaven.test.failure.ignore=true..
> 
> Noted that some of the .conf files are XML files while there are still
> some .properties file?  What is the rationale behind this?  Why not use
> .properties files or XML files uniformly for every configuration file?
> 
> Also, why name some XML files as .conf files?  Can't they be named .xml
> to easily identify them as XML files?  May be like {some-name}-conf.xml?
> Or put all configuration files under a conf directory with XML
> extension?
> --
> Sankar
> 

I fully support this idea, because from an user's point
of view, I know how painfull it can be if you are looking
for an configuration in all the xml files, and after 
hours you discover the switch in properties file.

Though, maybe property files are faster (for startup ?)?

-- 

Stefan

Re: [properties]Why .properties instead of XML?

[Bill de hÓra <bi...@dehora.net>]

Khrishnamurthy, Sankar wrote:

> Noted that some of the .conf files are XML files while there are still
> some .properties file?  What is the rationale behind this?  Why not use
> .properties files or XML files uniformly for every configuration file?

I suppose because some people/tools don't need a nested structure; 
where key-values are sufficient .properties.

Bill de hÓra

Re: [properties]Why .properties instead of XML?

[Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>]

Jason Dillon wrote:


>> Also, why name some XML files as .conf files?  Can't they be named .xml
>> to easily identify them as XML files?  May be like {some-name}-conf.xml?
>> Or put all configuration files under a conf directory with XML
>> extension?
> 
> Why does it matter?  There are XML Schema files which have an .xsd 
> extension.  They are xml files, but I would not suggest using .xml over 
> .xsd.
> 

One semi-common convention is to name them .xconf to identify them as XML
Configuration files.  Also there is .xlog (XML Log configuration file).

-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                 - Benjamin Franklin

Re: Hanging testcases [was Re: [properties]Why .properties instead of XML?]

["Daniel S. Haischt" <me...@daniel.stefan.haischt.name>]

Aaron Mulder wrote:

[...]
> 
> 	But WRT the hostname, what I meant was that if your machine is
> called "workstation" you should be able to "ping workstation", and if that
> doesn't work, add an entry to /etc/hosts so that "ping workstation" hits
> 127.0.0.1.  It's a little chancy on Windows because I think Windows ping
> will resolve and use SMB names whereas Java won't (though it also may be
> different with/without WINS) -- I'm not sure how to do a good test on
> Windows.
> 

if you want to lookup DNS names you must use nslookup on windows and
not ping. if you are using the ping comand, your workstation name
will always be resolved as 10.0.0.1. at least if using the ping
comand try using a FDQN (your workstation name + your domain name).

if you still want to use the more simple syntax of ...

  -> ping [my workstation name]

... you can try to add the following entry to ...


  -> $WINDIR\system32\drivers\etc\hosts

------8<-----------8<----------8<------------8<-----------
192.168.120.10	foo.bar.com	foo
192.168.120.10	foo.bar.com.
# ^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^    ^^^^
#      (1)           (2)         (3)
#
# 1) your IP address.
# 2) your workstation- + domainname.
# 3) your workstation name.

------>8----------->8---------->8------------>8-----------

i've tested all of the above examples on my w2k machine.

regards

daniel s. haischt
--

Re: Hanging testcases [was Re: [properties]Why .properties instead of XML?]

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Siva wrote:
>       Am using a windows mac with 1.4.0_01 jdk.Any
> clues?

	That's a fairly unique platform!  Am afraid I don't have any
advice to give on it.

	But WRT the hostname, what I meant was that if your machine is
called "workstation" you should be able to "ping workstation", and if that
doesn't work, add an entry to /etc/hosts so that "ping workstation" hits
127.0.0.1.  It's a little chancy on Windows because I think Windows ping
will resolve and use SMB names whereas Java won't (though it also may be
different with/without WINS) -- I'm not sure how to do a good test on
Windows.

Aaron

Hanging testcases [was Re: [properties]Why .properties instead of XML?]

[Siva <si...@sivasundaram.com>]

Aaron,
    I am able to ping both by localhost and 127.0.0.1 
The entries are defined already in the hosts.
  
  When i traced,i found that it waits indefinitely 
when the test case tries to teardown by calling
"server.dispose()"

      Am using a windows mac with 1.4.0_01 jdk.Any
clues?

Siva
    
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Aaron Mulder" <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: [properties]Why .properties instead of XML?


> WRT the hangs, Check that your machine's host name resolves
> properly.  I had a problem with the remoting tests hanging when I took my
> work machine home, and its host name was only resolvable against the DNS
> at work.  Putting the host name in the 127.0.0.1 entry in /etc/hosts (or
> windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts) fixed the problem, though it also
> usually means that remote clients won't be able to connect over RMI.
> 
> Aaron

Re: [properties]Why .properties instead of XML?

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

	WRT the hangs, Check that your machine's host name resolves
properly.  I had a problem with the remoting tests hanging when I took my
work machine home, and its host name was only resolvable against the DNS
at work.  Putting the host name in the 127.0.0.1 entry in /etc/hosts (or
windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts) fixed the problem, though it also
usually means that remote clients won't be able to connect over RMI.

Aaron

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Siva wrote:
> Failing test cases 
> 1) org.apache.geronimo.naming.java.BasicContextTest - 1 Error
> 2) org.apache.geronimo.remoting.MarshalingInterceptorsTest - 8 Errors
> 
> Hung test cases
> 1) org.apache.geronimo.remoting.RemotingInterceptorsTest
> 2) org.apache.geronimo.remoting.transport.AsyncTransportTest

Re: [properties]Why .properties instead of XML?

[Siva <si...@sivasundaram.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jason Dillon" <ja...@coredevelopers.net>
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: [properties]Why .properties instead of XML?


> > Just made a successful build of Geronimo - albeit with
> > -Dmaven.test.failure.ignore=true..
> 
> Which tests failed?

Failing test cases 
1) org.apache.geronimo.naming.java.BasicContextTest - 1 Error
2) org.apache.geronimo.remoting.MarshalingInterceptorsTest - 8 Errors

Hung test cases
1) org.apache.geronimo.remoting.RemotingInterceptorsTest
2) org.apache.geronimo.remoting.transport.AsyncTransportTest

Re: [properties]Why .properties instead of XML?

[Jason Dillon <ja...@coredevelopers.net>]

> Just made a successful build of Geronimo - albeit with
> -Dmaven.test.failure.ignore=true..

Which tests failed?


> Noted that some of the .conf files are XML files while there are still
> some .properties file?  What is the rationale behind this?  Why not use
> .properties files or XML files uniformly for every configuration file?

Because some of the tools we are using use xml and others user 
properties.


> Also, why name some XML files as .conf files?  Can't they be named .xml
> to easily identify them as XML files?  May be like 
> {some-name}-conf.xml?
> Or put all configuration files under a conf directory with XML
> extension?


Why does it matter?  There are XML Schema files which have an .xsd 
extension.  They are xml files, but I would not suggest using .xml over 
.xsd.

--jason