Using option 2, we'd have to hardcode a magic value for the protocol
name. It'd be "better" to use an explicit element, imo. Of course,
that change will require talking to asarch, probably, but I'm all for it.
On 6/1/10 11:36 AM, Oleksiy Stashok wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>