Jason Porter wrote on 03/12/12 11:54:
> I like the idea of #3 and use one of the new JNDI locations defined in Java EE
> 6, module perhaps so other apps in the same EAR could share the datasource.
Most of our existing pre-defined names are in the java:comp namespace,
mostly because they were defined before we had the additional namespaces.
For consistency, we would probably do the same for a default datasource,
even though the "scope" of the datasource is global and could be used
by any component in any module in any application.
> As we'll more than likely have an XML counterpart for this, might I recommend
> having one file for all this configuration stuff? We already have ejb.xml,
> application.xml, beans.xml (yes, I know this is as much of a marker file for the
> archives as anything else), web.xml, faces-config.xml, persistence.xml and
> possibly one or two I've forgotten. I also understand some of these are optional
> now like web.xml or faces-config.xml. Moving towards a unification of
> configuration files which would allow configuration of all (most only possible?)
> of these would be a great help for new developers.
The proposal here doesn't require an XML counterpart. It defines a new
name that the app server always provides. The application doesn't have
to do anything for the name to appear. Use of the name would use the
existing mechanisms in the existing deployment descriptors.
Unification of configuration files is an interesting issue, but unrelated
to this proposal.