RE: Re: Re: EAR/WAR Deployment

> From: Mark Phippard
>
> As usual, I disagree with you on this issue.

Yup, you do.  And you're wrong, IMO.


> There is some forced structure below that, but I
> just do not find that the hard-ship that you do.

Have you talked to RPG programmers trying to learn this stuff?  No, that's a
stupid question, you obviously haven't.


> I wish that WAS Express did not carry with it the extra things like nodes
> and cells that are only needed in the higher-end versions of WAS, but I
> can certainly understand the budget issues that go into making these
> products and having a single code base is probably worth some of these
> extraneous items being there.

There's no reason for it.  It's inflexible, and inflexibility is the bane of
business application software.  Sorry, but that's the case.  If there's one
thing I have learned in 20+ years of development, it's this: EVERYTHING you
hardcode will eventually need to change for some client out there.  At least
with AS/400 software, you can go in the code and change it.  Not so with
this spoon-fed stuff.


> In WAS 3.5 having control of
> the CLASSPATH and other settings was great, but it was easy to make
> mistakes.

You have been assimilated.  You've become one of those people who wants
their job to be easy so they don't make mistakes.  I will reserve any
further comment on this issue.


> I believe that a lot of these benefits could only be provided by using a
> handful of magic filenames, like application.xml and web.xml and magic
> folders like ./WEB-INF/classes and ./WEB-INF/lib.  Could those
> magic names
> have been better?  Probably.  Who cares?  You learn it and move on.

That "Who cares" attitude is destroying the industry.  It could just as
easily have been done right, as it was with WebSphere 3.5.  In my opinion
WAS35 was written by people who understand application programming, whereas
the versions since have been written by computer science majors, and it
shows.


> I do not think this is drastically different then install a normal OS/400
> application and it is certainly much easier than installing a Windows
> application.

You can tell when someone's argument is running weak: they drag in Windows.
Brain surgery is easier than installing Windows applications, but that has
nothing to do with this conversation.

Anyway, you have your viewpoint.  I disagree, and since you're so adamant,
it's time to drop the subject rather than fill the list with incessant
point/counterpoint.  The other subscribers here are intelligent adults who
can form their own opinions.

Joe