Lloyd Chambers wrote:
> Jason,
>
> Thanks...response inline.
>
> Lloyd
>
> On Jan 28, 2009, at 7:41 AM, Justin Lee wrote:
>
> There is no provision in V3 for a DTD as the source of the interfaces.
> Java interfaces are the source at this point, the @Configured
> interfaces. A DTD does not work for a pluggable system; it would have
> infinite variation, never a fixed thing.
>
I'm actually in the process of making sure the DTD(s) and the interfaces
are in sync and then I'll probably just remove the DTDs for good measure
and work from the interfaces. I'm debating writing an hk2/maven mojo to
generate a DTD/XSD for basic validation (largely for my own benefit).
>> Yes, a skeleton http-service will be left in place though it was
>> recommended that it be renamed to web-container instead. I haven't
>> heard any pushback on that idea so I'll do that now.
>
> Messy, I'd push back personally.
>
We had debated removing it completely and migrating the remaining
elements elsewhere. I have no strong feelings either way.
> The whole thing is fine, but inserting it right into the middle of the
> spec is confusing, make it an appendix if you want to keep it.
I can move this out if you'd like. It's already in the grizzly repo, so
I can just link to it. That's how it was originally, anyway.
> We will need a special maven build step to collect all the javadoc for
> all interfaces somehow. In the meantime a link from the spec would work.
>
This is why I'm thinking about that maven plugin, actually...
>>
>>>
>>> llc09 -- AMX MBeans should be mentioned. Ideally the Java interfaces
>>> would be shown here.
>> the AMX MBeans pieces are still dark voodoo for me so if anyone
>> *really* wants to see those, I'll need some help with that. There
>> had been some talk about the AMX stuff being ... phased out going
>> forward. I'm not sure of the details or the resolution of that one
>> so if anyone knows something, I for one wouldn't mind an update.
>
> Config MBeans are taken care of automatically by the AMX system, and
> AMX is moving to a generic system. AMX interfaces aren't actually
> required, but
Anyone have anything to add here?
> can be desirable for client convenience. At this point, a note about
> AMX should suffice. If AMX is being phased out, it's news to me!
It's all news to me at this point. :)
Thanks for the feedback, though. I'm trying to get it all together for
you to see as soon as possible.