[phoenix] server.xml --> environment.xml

[Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>]

Hi,

Whats everyone think about renaming server.xml to environment.xml ? It has 
been requested by a few (2) users and it kinda makes sense. The file 
describes environmental information and thus environment.xml makes sense. It 
also starts to get away from the notion that Phoenix is solely for serverside 
work.

One of my initial goals for Phoenix was to enable it to scale from small 
computers on tanks to your large mainframes and I also wanted it to be able 
to be hostable in a GUI app. At the moment it is not really possible due to 
overhead of threads and ClassLoader stuff. However this will gradually change 
over time.

Anyways it would make more sense to rename the file to emphasize its purpose 
(it setting up environment) and to support notion that Phoenix is not just 
for serverside apps.

If it gets done it should be before release. Any objections if I change this 
? It will of course maintain backwards compatability and just issue warnings 
if the old style is used.

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

---------------------------------------------------
"Marriage, Friends, Religon -- these are the demons 
you must slay in order to suceed in business.." 
                 -- Mr. Burns, The Simpsons 
---------------------------------------------------

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: [phoenix] server.xml --> environment.xml

[Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:27, Ulrich Mayring wrote:
> > > I know that *.xinfo is
> > > for the block and assembly.xml for the .sar application. But it seems
> > > to me that in every .sar application I write, there is kind of an
> > > aggregate of the various *.xinfo files in my assembly.xml. It would be
> > > nicer, if this aggregation of information would be done automatically
> > > or not at all.
> >
> > again - need more context to figure out which part you are referring to.
>
> The *.xinfo file specifies which service this block offers and which
> services it depends on.

right.

> The assembly.xml file specifies which blocks are included in the .sar
> application. For each block it is specified which class this block
> offers

I am not sure what you mean here. There should be no where in assembly.xml 
where a Block declares the services it offers. Is that what you mean ?

> and which classes it depends on.

Not which classes it depends upon but which instances of classes that it 
depends upon. FWIW it is the same way the EJB/Servlet/J2EE specs define usage 
of JNDI contexts.

> Now, we have a difference here in that the services specify an interface
> and the classes an implementation. There could be several
> implementations of an interface - but there can be only one interface
> for an implementation. 

again not necessarily so. A Block could offer Foo, ExtendedFoo and FooMBean 
services easily enough.

> So once you specified an implementation it is
> IMHO redundant to specify its interface, no?

See above but there should not be any blocks who specify there interfaces in 
the assembly file. The assembly declares the type of dependency that a block 
will satisfy. As it is possibly for a block to depend on multiple instances 
of a service, I can't see anyway around this.
same service

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

----------------------------------
   "Don't play dumb with me. 
I happen to be an expert at that" 
           - Maxwell Smart
----------------------------------

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: [phoenix] server.xml --> environment.xml

[Ulrich Mayring <ul...@denic.de>]

Peter Donald wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 20:22, Ulrich Mayring wrote:
> > Peter Donald wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Whats everyone think about renaming server.xml to environment.xml ?
> >
> > Sounds reasonable to me.
> >
> > While we're on the subject of naming, what is *.xinfo supposed to
> > achieve? Why not give it an XML suffix like all other files? Instead of
> > myblock.xinfo we could name it myblock-info.xml or even myblock.xml.
> 
> no idea. It was just what we decided at the time. I can't see anything wrong
> with that though.

Well, we have three config files with an .xml extension. If we introduce
a fourth, then for the sake of simplicity, the default should be to give
it a name consistent with what's already there. If there is a compelling
reason for a different naming scheme in this case, then the default can
be overridden.

> > I know that *.xinfo is
> > for the block and assembly.xml for the .sar application. But it seems to
> > me that in every .sar application I write, there is kind of an aggregate
> > of the various *.xinfo files in my assembly.xml. It would be nicer, if
> > this aggregation of information would be done automatically or not at
> > all.
> 
> again - need more context to figure out which part you are referring to.

The *.xinfo file specifies which service this block offers and which
services it depends on.

The assembly.xml file specifies which blocks are included in the .sar
application. For each block it is specified which class this block
offers and which classes it depends on.

Now, we have a difference here in that the services specify an interface
and the classes an implementation. There could be several
implementations of an interface - but there can be only one interface
for an implementation. So once you specified an implementation it is
IMHO redundant to specify its interface, no?

Ulrich

-- 
Ulrich Mayring
DENIC eG, Systementwicklung

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: [phoenix] server.xml --> environment.xml

[Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 20:22, Ulrich Mayring wrote:
> Peter Donald wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Whats everyone think about renaming server.xml to environment.xml ?
>
> Sounds reasonable to me.
>
> While we're on the subject of naming, what is *.xinfo supposed to
> achieve? Why not give it an XML suffix like all other files? Instead of
> myblock.xinfo we could name it myblock-info.xml or even myblock.xml.

no idea. It was just what we decided at the time. I can't see anything wrong 
with that though. 

> Then, there is (correct me if I'm wrong) some redundant information
> between the *.xinfo and the assembly.xml file. 

redundent - not that I know of - what are you referring to?

> I know that *.xinfo is
> for the block and assembly.xml for the .sar application. But it seems to
> me that in every .sar application I write, there is kind of an aggregate
> of the various *.xinfo files in my assembly.xml. It would be nicer, if
> this aggregation of information would be done automatically or not at
> all.

again - need more context to figure out which part you are referring to.


-- 
Cheers,

Pete

The big mistake that men make is that when they turn thirteen or fourteen and
all of a sudden they've reached puberty, they believe that they like women.
Actually, you're just horny. It doesn't mean you like women any more at
twenty-one than you did at ten.                --Jules Feiffer (cartoonist)

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: [phoenix] server.xml --> environment.xml

[Ulrich Mayring <ul...@denic.de>]

Peter Donald wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Whats everyone think about renaming server.xml to environment.xml ?

Sounds reasonable to me.

While we're on the subject of naming, what is *.xinfo supposed to
achieve? Why not give it an XML suffix like all other files? Instead of
myblock.xinfo we could name it myblock-info.xml or even myblock.xml.

Then, there is (correct me if I'm wrong) some redundant information
between the *.xinfo and the assembly.xml file. I know that *.xinfo is
for the block and assembly.xml for the .sar application. But it seems to
me that in every .sar application I write, there is kind of an aggregate
of the various *.xinfo files in my assembly.xml. It would be nicer, if
this aggregation of information would be done automatically or not at
all.

Ulrich

-- 
Ulrich Mayring
DENIC eG, Systementwicklung

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: [phoenix] server.xml --> environment.xml

[Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 05:28, Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
> Hi Donald,

peter ;)

> That are exactly my thoughts about phoenix, when I get involved. Server.xml
> is a little bit misleadingly. So you get my first shy +1 for this
> proposal...

done.

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to |
| their level, and beat you with experience           |
*-----------------------------------------------------*

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

RE: [phoenix] server.xml --> environment.xml

[Gerhard Froehlich <g-...@gmx.de>]

Hi Donald,
>Hi,
>
>Whats everyone think about renaming server.xml to environment.xml ? It has 
>been requested by a few (2) users and it kinda makes sense. The file 
>describes environmental information and thus environment.xml makes sense. It 
>also starts to get away from the notion that Phoenix is solely for serverside 
>work.
>
>One of my initial goals for Phoenix was to enable it to scale from small 
>computers on tanks to your large mainframes and I also wanted it to be able 
>to be hostable in a GUI app. At the moment it is not really possible due to 
>overhead of threads and ClassLoader stuff. However this will gradually change 
>over time.
>
>Anyways it would make more sense to rename the file to emphasize its purpose 
>(it setting up environment) and to support notion that Phoenix is not just 
>for serverside apps.
That are exactly my thoughts about phoenix, when I get involved. Server.xml
is a little bit misleadingly. So you get my first shy +1 for this proposal...

So long
Gerhard

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

RE: [phoenix] server.xml --> environment.xml

[Stephen McConnell <mc...@osm.net>]

Peter Donald wrote:
> Whats everyone think about renaming server.xml to 
> environment.xml ? 

An unoffical + 1 from me.

Cheers, Steve.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>