Re: [jbossws-dev] Fwd: [jbossws-commits] JBossWS SVN: r19139 - in stack/cxf/branches/modules: modules and 100 other directories.
Great, Alessio. If the old configuration files can be more refactored , simplified, there
is no reason to change.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alessio Soldano <asoldano(a)redhat.com>
To: Jim Ma <ema(a)redhat.com>, jbossws-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:29:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Fwd: [jbossws-commits] JBossWS SVN: r19139 - in stack/cxf/branches/modules:
modules and 100 other directories.
On 18/12/14 08:54, Jim Ma wrote:
OK. Alessio. If this is something we can improve, that will be nice
too. So far, what I realize the problem of deploy/undeploy scripts is
we need to maintain several different xml/conf files.
I understood this works well when we undeploy the native stack, jaxrpc
stuff and deploy with new jbossws-cxf stack in the past. If we move or
remove a module, we can also change the dependency and not depends the
missed one. I am not sure if this can resolve this issue.
It can't, as with
your approach we're only "adding" stuff and not
removing anything (we unzip the new module structure over the existing
one). It can happen (and it has happened from time to time) that we stop
using a given module in a new release, or we refactor the module
structure, or stuff like that. Some of the scenario can be dealt with by
simply dropping a dependency as you write above (and forgetting a dead
module on the server), some others can't.
In any case, the set of files to maintain for deploy/undeploy is now
down to 1 ant xml file, the usual assembly plugin xml file and a single
line conf file, so not that much. Btw, by looking at your branch I
figured out we could possibly slim down the xml file a bit more, as
currently the wfly8 and wfly9 structure is pretty much the same, so we
can avoid some duplication.
Cheers
Alessio
--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss