[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: ESB Packaging
by sacha.labourey＠jboss.com
Mark,
Not sure I understant the wizards.
I mean, if you were to use MBean properties (frankly, it is very trivial), all you need to run the ESB could pretty much be deployed in the /deploy folder of any AS instance (including, as dicussed, the DB scripts).
Consequently, you could provide:
- a downloadable zip/tgz that is a standalone ESB environment (i.e. MC/MK+ESB files only), and/or
- a downloadable zip/tgz that could be dropped, as is, inside ANY AS setup, in its /deploy folder
Makes sense?
sacha
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3988800#3988800
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3988800
19 years, 4 months
[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: ESB configuration
by tfennelly
"alesj" wrote : "tfennelly" wrote :
| | Of course, one downside to using an "off the shelf" container is usually the generic "one fits all" configuration which can become very verbose. Not sure if that's also the case with MC. I know that Spring 2.x supports domain specific configurations on top of its container, which means you can tailor the config file to be something more meaningful to your application, while at the same time get the benefits of the container. Of course I'm not suggesting we use Spring, but I do think that's a nice container level feature.
|
| MC already supports this.
| There is some code to write, to bind you specific configuration and container, but it is trivial.
|
|
Lovely Jobly :-)
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3988796#3988796
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3988796
19 years, 4 months
[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: ESB configuration
by tfennelly
"Kevin.Conner(a)jboss.com" wrote : Both MC and OSGi are lightweight and provide the functionality we would otherwise need to write. It is better for us to leverage these frameworks than it is to reinvent.
|
+1
Perhaps I missread Kurt anyway. Sorry if I did Kurt :-)
Of course, one downside to using an "off the shelf" container is usually the generic "one fits all" configuration which can become very verbose. Not sure if that's also the case with MC. I know that Spring 2.x supports domain specific configurations on top of its container, which means you can tailor the config file to be something more meaningful to your application, while at the same time get the benefits of the container. Of course I'm not suggesting we use Spring, but I do think that's a nice container level feature.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3988787#3988787
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3988787
19 years, 4 months