Maybe, for this particular case; but I'm asking in general, e.g. for IP's which are replaced.

BTW, in case I decided to use the properties, are the names final? Are they documented?

Thanks,
Ondra


On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 10:29 +0000, Kabir Khan wrote: 
In the testsuite, either is fine (unless we have some tests checking the model for expressions).
However, rather than performing the xslt mentioned to change the ports it sounds simpler to supply the properties when running the tests, e.g.
>      <socket-binding name="management-native" interface="management" port="${jboss.management.native.port:9999}"/>

and -Djboss.management.native.port=<new-value>

On 21 Feb 2012, at 07:07, Ondrej Zizka wrote:

> Currently, during XSLT transformation,
> 
>      <socket-binding name="management-native" interface="management" port="${jboss.management.native.port:9999}"/>
> 
> becomes
> 
>      <socket-binding name="management-native" interface="management" port="<new-value>"/>
> 
> Is it ok or do you need it to be
> 
>      <socket-binding name="management-native" interface="management" port="${jboss.management.native.port:<new-value>}"/>
> 
> ?
> 
> Ondra
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> jboss-as7-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev