I have most of the xml mapped to java objects as best as I can
determine. I really need some feedback as to correctness so far. I
have an OOo spreadsheet showing the mapping from a high level and most
of that implemented. There are a number of items I can't figure out how
to map so I really need input there.
I also wanted to readdress the standalone config for grizzly and if it's
something we *really* want. Currently most of the world is moving away
from XML based configurations, do we really want to introduce another?
I ask for several reasons. Foremost is I need to get a tech spec ready
for review by the 17th as pertains to glassfish configuration and I'm
afraid the grizzly standalone config is a little afield of that effort.
Secondly, it'd probably be much more robust (though certainly take a
little more work) to use, say, hk2 like glassfish has done to manage
configuration processing and evaluation. As much as I dislike the
thought of another XML configuration, I like reinventing the wheel less.
But if this is something the grizzly project/community really wants,
then why not? But for me, for now, I need to finish up the spec on the
glassfish end of things. I need to map out what commands are going to
break (there's a list already started...) and what needs to be
added/changed for them to work. This will involve more time digging
through glassfish code than grizzly for the next few days, though. What
I've been working on mostly would be considered the RI part of this
effort in any case and need to wrap the one pager for asarch review
before the 17th. In the meantime, I'd love some feedback on what I have
so far and any direction for future changes. I'm not at all married to
what is there right now (everything I have is currently checked into svn
for you to review) and that's in part why I keep coming back to the hk2
option.
Anyway, please give that all a look and let me know what you think good,
bad, or indifferent. Thanks.