geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Denes" <de...@ppgia.pucpr.br>
Subject RES: J2EE deployment verifier
Date Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:06:02 GMT
If the arrows means "uses" I think that's right.

Not sure about what DeploymentManager really is. Is it the deploy tool,
some daemon on server, or both?

Denes


> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: Jonathan Duty [mailto:jduty@jonandkerry.com]
> Enviada em: segunda-feira, 11 de agosto de 2003 13:49
> Para: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Assunto: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> 
> Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you
> were describing.  Do I have the correct Idea of your vision?
> The image is attached.  Hope this helps others out also.
> ~Jonathan
> 
> 
> 
> Weston M. Price wrote:
> 
> >I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris
alluded
> to
> >earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for
coordinating
> the
> >interaction between the verification engine and the deployment
> engine....sort
> >of a controller, that way the two can be loosely coupled relying on
an
> >external agent to provide an higher level of service, in this case
the
> >complete deployment of a J2EE archive.
> >
> >Weston
> >
> >On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
> >>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
> >>implement the SPI for the deployer.
> >>
> >>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
> >>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
> >>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
> >>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
> >>
> >>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
> >>up with a list potential technical problems we could
> >>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
> >>
> >>Labeeb Syed
> >>
> >>--- Chris Opacki <chris_opacki@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>That is exactly what i was thinking. This is the
> >>>object model that has been defined in the deployment
> >>>spec... under Tool Provider Interfaces. There are
> >>>also
> >>>some other classes, exceptions and interfaces that
> >>>both modules might use.
> >>>
> >>>--- "Weston M. Price" <weston_p@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>But I do agree that the two teams must work
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>closely
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>together....Chris made an
> >>>>excellent point in indetifying that there are
> >>>>certain basic facilities that
> >>>>we can use together....I think if we can agree on
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>common object model for
> >>>>archive formats (EAR, WAR, SAR) then we could
> >>>>probably develop our own
> >>>>streams, attributes, behavior.....
> >>>>
> >>>>Weston
> >>>>
> >>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 03:18 pm, Chris Opacki
> >>>>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Ditto on all of that! Quite honestly...the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>deployer
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>shouldn't run...period...until the verifier has
> >>>>>run...its a good idea that the deployableobject
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>are
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>build from within a controller that sends them
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>verifier for verification and then to the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>deployer.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Something along that lines at a high level. we
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>can
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>reuse both engines for CLI and the GUI.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>--- Jonathan Duty <jduty@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>+1 You've convinced me.  That would be a bad
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>a$$
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>tool to have as a
> >>>>>>developer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Plus, the deployment team could use it if they
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>want
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>to verify the
> >>>>>>archive schema before they start deploying it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Count me in!
> >>>>>>~Jonathan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Jonathan Duty
> >>>>>>Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:41 AM
> >>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I agree completely. I think what we are
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>talking
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>about are two modules
> >>>>>>that are
> >>>>>>close cousins. The verification manager is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>again,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>the "front-line" of
> >>>>>>defense
> >>>>>>for the deployment manager. I would assume the
> >>>>>>deployment manager would
> >>>>>>deal
> >>>>>>with critical errors such as
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>LinkageConstraints,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>incorrect classfile
> >>>>>>versions
> >>>>>>etc. while the verfication manager will handle
> >>>>>>actual semantic
> >>>>>>fallibities in
> >>>>>>the deployment descriptors based upon the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>existing
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>specifications.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>	The reason I mentioned a seperate
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>verification
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>module was that I
> >>>>>>would
> >>>>>>developers (hell, I know I would) like an
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>engine
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>that given a deployment
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>platform could validate their archive before
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>ever
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>trying to drop it in
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>>chute. This would save a lot of time largely
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>due
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>to
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>the fact that XML
> >>>>>>descriptors are not typed and you don't know
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>if
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>they
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>are "correct" at
> >>>>>>compile
> >>>>>>time. I suppose the biggest win in all of this
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>in my
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>opion would be to
> >>>>>>provide hooks for an ANT task that would
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>verify
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>archive during
> >>>>>>compile
> >>>>>>time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Regards,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Weston
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On Monday 11 August 2003 02:39 pm, Jonathan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>Duty
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Why couldn't they be close friends. Could
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>this
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>verifier, even as a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>separate module, be a subset of the deploy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>module?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I mean we don't
> >>>>>>want
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>to deploy something that the J2EE server
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>will
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>not
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>accept.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Maybe these 2 groups should work close
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>together.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>~Jonathan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>From: Chris Opacki
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>[mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:23 AM
> >>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>My bad...I was assuming the deploy tool and
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>verifier would be close friends.
> >>>>>>>;)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>--- Srihari S <sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>True
> >>>>>>>>Our module is just going to check and
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>declare
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>whether or not a given unit of
> >>>>>>>>deployment
> >>>>>>>>is deployable on a j2ee server or not.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Nothing more..nothing less.
> >>>>>>>>Building this unit will be our
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>mission..right
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>weston??
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>From: Weston M. Price
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>[mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:05 PM
> >>>>>>>>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>And even further, let's clarify the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>verification
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>is
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>a completely different
> >>>>>>>>animal than actual deployment. Am I
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>correct
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>on
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>this
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>one at least in terms of
> >>>>>>>>the way we are thinking about this module?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Weston
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>=== message truncated ===
> >>
> >>
> >>__________________________________
> >>Do you Yahoo!?
> >>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> >>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> >>
> >>


Mime
View raw message