Hi,
> 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.
Can you pls. post the URL of that mapping document?
> 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 agree, for ex, in Java we see developers start to use annotations
instead of having separate config file.
But in our case, we want opposite effect. We want to have external
Grizzly config, which will let us to start Grizzly with minimum Java
code.
Annotations are good, when they are simple, but if we'll try to write
Grizzly config, based on annotations - then it could become much more
ugly, than just having XML config file.
> 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.
We can wait with Grizzly standalone implementation.
What could be more important is to define common configuration
interfaces and Glassfish support for them. You will define common
configuration interfaces for GF anyway, right?
> 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.
Agree, think GF integration is currently higher priority, than
standalone config.
> n 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.
I took a look what you've commited to grizzly workspace... there is
GrizzlyConfig class, which imports config interfaces, but that
interfaces are not in place. Do I miss something?
Thanks.
WBR,
Alexey.
> Anyway, please give that all a look and let me know what you think
> good, bad, or indifferent. Thanks.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>