Jason Lee wrote:
(...)
>> I personally do prefer a scripting solution to xml but that's just me.
>> Since you stated in your RFE that you are missing the xml-based
>> configuration I wonder if it offers additional functionality. In other
>> words: Is it just a matter of taste which solution to use (given that
>> the xml-solution gets implemented) or are there use-cases where you
>> think the xml-solution offers more flexibility or power?
>
> It probably is just a preference, but I think it makes sense: I
> think deploying an would be much simpler if we can provide a text file
> which the user can edit and place in a deployment directory, as
> opposed to telling a user to open a command prompt, run these series
> of seemingly arcane commands (note that I LOVE the command line :).
> Oh! You better make sure things are in the search path, and, oh yeah.
> You'll need shell privileges on the server in question. With an XML
> file, all one needs is (shudder) FTP access. Granted, such a scenario
> may not be the norm, but I have seen hosting providers who do not
> offer/allow shells, so it's not completely unreasonable.
>
Ok. I agree that this sounds like a viable option. Another tool one can
use. I think GF has some other issues to solve first (something like the
context-based manager app of tomcat) before providers will use it. But
nevertheless I agree with you that dropping in a file somewhere might be
the better solution in some cases.
And that your proposal - if implemented - might help developers that
used to use JBoss to work with Glassfish is another positive aspect of
your proposal. So let's see what others think.
--
Wolfram