<div>Has a decision been made about whether to rename the distribution and compressed folder name as follows, or is this topic still open for consideration?</div><div><br></div><div>distribution name: jboss-as-7.0.0.Final.zip</div>
<div>compressed folder name: jboss-as</div><div><br></div><div>I strongly encourage this convention to help reinforce the distinction between the JBoss brand/community and the project. JBoss AS 6 went half way by naming the distribution jboss-as-6.0.0.Final.zip but leaving the folder as jboss.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I heard that this change has been deferred until AS 8. However, I think deferring it will be more painful and potentially upset users in the long run. We already change the startup script name, the deployment directory name and the mechanism for hot deployment. Can't we just rip off the tape all at once and rename the distribution and folder name? Seriously, I think it would be a huge mistake to let this one go.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Max has already prepared a pull request for the build change:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/jbossas/jboss-as/pull/53">https://github.com/jbossas/jboss-as/pull/53</a></div><div><br>
</div><div>I also noticed in the getting started guide that Pete drafted that he recommends setting JBOSS_HOME before starting the server (though I think that recommendation has now been removed). However, if you already have JBOSS_HOME set (let's say for JBoss AS 5), then it's a problem when you try to run AS 7.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Every release of AS that I download, I get around this by adding the following to the run.conf (now standalone.conf)</div><div><br></div><div>JBOSS_HOME=$DIRNAME/..</div><div><br></div><div>That way, JBOSS_HOME is set relative to the startup script I'm executing.I have yet to find a problem with this approach. For standalone, that seems *way* simpler. Plus, I can toggle between different "installations" of the server without having to change my environment variables. I would never want to start a different instance than for the script I'm executing. That's just nonsensical.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This last point is probably way too big of a change, but have we considered changing JBOSS_HOME to JBOSS_AS_HOME. We could meet half way and just support both, checking first for JBOSS_AS_HOME, then falling back to JBOSS_HOME.</div>
<div><br></div><div>wdyt?</div><div><br></div><div>-Dan</div><br>-- <br><div>Dan Allen</div>Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>Registered Linux User #231597<br><br><div><a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about</a><br>
<a href="http://mojavelinux.com" target="_blank">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction" target="_blank">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a></div>