I propose to initialize jmsra above from a system property with "jms-ra.rar" being the default in case the system property hasn't been set. This way we avoid the DTD issue.

And where that system property would be initialized?

You will end up having to add a XML somewhere anyway.. since it's not acceptable adding -D at run.sh.

So, I propose some MBean or something like it that will change the defalut name. (Or set the system property if you like).

We need to be able to configure what's the default name using

We just can't rely on the -D to define the behaviour of the resource adapters on this case.

Can there be a EAP versions of our DTDs, in this case and eap-5.1 version? I think this will be a recurring problem.

I was actually thinking.. .a System property would be good.. as long as it could be defined somewhere on the configs through some XML. As I said we will probably need some MBean that will define the system property?

If we had such property, we could have both EJB3 and EJB2 reading the same property.

Clebert Suconic wrote:

 

As I said we will probably need some MBean that will define the system property?

 

 

MBean won't be required. We can follow this syntax in the xmls:

${some.system.property.name:defaultvalue}

The xml parsing will look for a system property named "some.system.property.name" and if not already set, then will set the value to "defaultvalue"

Agreed. I don't see why we cant create an update dtd for EAP releases. The system property is a pretty ugly solution for this.

Right, and how do you set some.system.property.name without changing run.conf?

It is unacceptable to add a -D property to set this config. Whatever config we choose must be done through some XML that would be read at boot time.

A MC XML Bean setting a property would be fine since users are not meant to change it.

a System property is not.

Clebert Suconic wrote:

 

Right, and how do you set some.system.property.name without changing run.conf?

 

 

It is unacceptable to add a -D property to set this config.

I am not saying that we should be doing it through a system property.

Alexey Loubyansky wrote:

 

IMO, a separate DTD for EAP is even uglier.

 

DTDs to be created are jboss_6_0.dtd, jboss_5_x_eap.dtd. And in case we want to support this in 5.x non-EAP versions then also jboss_5_x.dtd.

Yeah the forking can create a slight mess. One thing that does help though is that once an EAP line starts, we don't do community releases on that branch. So there should only be two descriptors. We could also call EAP 5.0, jboss 5.2, and EAP 5.1 jboss 5.3 etc if we want to keep them incremental.