[weld-dev] Supporting namespaces in Java EE config files (non-portable feature for JBoss AS)

[Arbi Sookazian]

Ok, sorry.  The vendor-specific application server xml files are a
disaster.  Eliminate them if possible.  You're right, it would make our
lives somewhat simpler/easier w/o them.  Refactoring when porting to a
different app server should hopefully not be too much work.  Either way,
there would be work involved when porting an app to a different app server.

It would be nice if all xml files were hot deployable as well (JRebel has
support for hot deploying applicationContext.xml and struts-config.xml
IIRC).  But that's a different topic I guess...


On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:

> No, I am talking about things like jboss-web.xml vs web.xml,
> application.xml vs jboss-app.xml etc. components.xml and pages.xml are stuff
> from Seam2. I am specifically talking about vendor extensions to specs where
> vendors introduce their own config files to control the their spec
> extensions
>
> On 25 Nov 2009, at 16:31, Arbi Sookazian wrote:
>
> > So I take it you're specifically referring to components.xml and
> pages.xml (and not faces-config.xml)?  If you could fine, but then what
> happens if the dev wants to port to another integration fwk and eliminate
> Seam3 (not that anybody would really do that!)
>
> TBH if someone takes an existing large app that has Seam deeply in it and
> decides to remove Seam, editing a config file is probably the easiest bit
> for them ;-) Don't be fooled into thinking that you can delete a few config
> files, delete some jars and your app magically keeps going
>
> > Instead of deleting Seam-specific xml files, you must edit EE-specific
> xml files.  But I guess that may not be a big deal.
> >
> > It seems cleaner to me and easier to read/understand the configs if you
> have separate Seam-specific xml files for it...  Of course, it may be easier
> for users b/c it's less files to worry about...
>
> Exactly. Of course you would still have the option of splitting things out
> if you are anal about this kind of stuff.
>
> >
> > I would consider Seam to be an extension of JEE, so if you "collapse"
> data in EE-specific xml files, then that may be considered an intrusion of
> sorts...
>
> If you think like this, you probably aren't using Seam - this stuff
> "intrudes" into your app in many places ;-)
>
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:02 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > Something that came up during our Seam team meeting was the issue of
> config files again. We wanted to investigate again why we can't put
> namespaced elements into existing java ee config files such as
> application.xml, ejb-jar.xml, web.xml, but instead have to provide our
> own... Of course, this is non portable, but it would make life easier for
> users in our opinion.
> >
> > Previously we have heard that this would cause us to fail the TCK, but
> given that this code would never run in the EE TCK, I can't see how.
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > Pete
> > _______________________________________________
> > weld-dev mailing list
> > weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/weld-dev/attachments/20091125/d96484ba/attachment.html