I'm "done" with the updates, I think. I have the grizzly interfaces
done and have attached the javadoc to the one pager. I left the DTDs
linked in case anyone was overly attached to having them. I haven't
modified the glassfish interfaces yet since the impact there is much
wider but if anyone's interested, I can do that, too.
http://wiki.glassfish.java.net/Wiki.jsp?page=GrizzlyConfigOnePager
Justin Lee wrote:
> 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.