> So you're suggesting introducing a <jk> entry with an attribute to
> point to the configuration file? I could live with that. I don't
> like using <property> elements, though, as I think we should be
> explicit when we know what we're expecting so we can check and
> validate (and document).
Right, we might have 2 options here:
<protocols>
<jk config="..."/>
<!-- other protocols -->
</protocols>
or
<protocols>
<protocol name="jk">
<property name="config" value="...."/>
</protocol>
<!-- other protocols -->
</protocols>
I like the 1st one :)
WBR,
Alexey.
>
> On 5/31/10 5:24 AM, oleksiys wrote:
>> https://grizzly.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=827
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------- Additional comments from oleksiys_at_dev.java.net Mon May 31
>> 09:24:13 +0000 2010 -------
>> Justin, just one point.
>> We can define jk as<protocol> and specify the property file using
>> XML attribute or<property> of the
>> <protocol>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>>
>>