| V3M6: Questions regarding configuration and servlet container versions [message #693364] |
Wed, 06 July 2011 06:29  |
|
Hi guys,
first I'd like to say thanks for your work, it's really nice to see how Virgo is growing in maturity and functionality each time a new milestone/major release is released.
For the latest milestone release I have some questions and notes:
1. Now that there is telnet and SSH support there are four configuration files to configure host and port for these two services. I personally don't like that and think that one configuration file should be enough to configure telnet and SSH both for kernel and user region. What do you guys think about that? Are there any technical reasons that don't allow one config file?
Moreover there are two files now for the user credentials (org.eclipse.virgo.kernel.users.properties and the generated store file). Again multiple configuration files for a similar purpose (and one has clear text passwords in it while the other one is storing some kind of hash (SHA-1?) for the password). Same question as before - is it possible to merge these into one config file?
Let me even go one step further. I personally like the idea of having just one (or at least only a few) files where all the config stuff is done. Would that be possible? I thought of maybe one big XML configuration (and an XSD file for code completion and validation). What are your thoughts on this?
2. In this blog article there is this note that the Jetty version of Virgo is not to be considered a prototype anymore. Now I'm wondering if there are any reasons why I should choose one servlet container version over the other. I know that some of the Spring guys work on Tomcat so my guess is that there is more experience available when it comes to the question on how to integrate Tomcat into Virgo the best way possible than with Jetty. Is this assumption correct?
Regards
Frieder
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: V3M6: Questions regarding configuration and servlet container versions [message #693800 is a reply to message #693418] |
Thu, 07 July 2011 04:29   |
|
@Glyn
Thank you for the confirmation. I think we'll continue using the Tomcat version then.
@Borislav
Thank you for the information as well as raising the bugs. I see the point regarding your concerns towards one big config file. I agree that such config files tend to grow over time and might become overly complex. But I think the same concerns are valid if there are lots of different small config files as that can be as confusing and complex as one big config file.
I'm curious what others have to say about this 
Regards
Frieder
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.01909 seconds