geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From de...@ppgia.pucpr.br
Subject Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Date Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:47:47 GMT
Are you saying to use CASTOR to read the xmls files?

Not familiar with CASTOR, but you think that is better than JAXB (it`s only a 
question, I *really* don`t stand uf for JAXB...)?

Denes

Citando "Weston M. Price" <weston_p@yahoo.com>:

> Castor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday 11 August 2003 07:33 pm, denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
> > Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet. Definitively needs help on
> that...
> >
> > About planning: I think that all of us agreed that the deployment
> verifier
> > will have to be a component: it will have to receive the ear file from
> > somewhere and do all the tasks without any help of external entities.
> This
> > way, it can be placed in the client GUI, in the server, we can create an
> > ant task for it, and so on.
> >
> > Some thoughs about the verifier:
> >
> > 1. It should have an interface for rules. This interface will allow each
> > rule implemented in a distinct class (several rules can be implemented in
> > the same class either). Not sure about performance issues yet, but IMO
> this
> > is the best that can be done to make sure that new rules added/removed
> from
> > specs will be promptly integrated into verifier. I'm thinking in Chain of
> > Responsability to manage the rules, but each rule will have to say about
> > what domain it`s related (home interfaces rules, local interfaces rules,
> > session rules and so on). One "class rule" can be related to more than
> one
> > domain. This will speed up the process, as the verifies asks only the
> rules
> > related to the domain that it`s verifying at moment;
> >
> > 2. It should have an interface for expressing rules violations, like
> > ActionError on Struts. This interface should allow to query about what
> > section was violated, the message related to the error (with i18n for
> sure
> > ;) ), the offendind class and so on. This way, any tool that want to use
> > the validator can get the error lists and manipulate them as they want;
> IMO
> > this is better than exceptions because we can generate several violations
> > at once and is better that string messages because gives more
> flexibility.
> >
> > 3. The validator will have to read the application.xml and ejb-jar.xml
> > files to do the job (specific deployment files like jboss.xml would be
> > interesting but have to be integrated in a really modular way). The point
> > is that the server will have to read these file as well to startup the
> > application. So, the reader should be placed in a common lib. Do anyone
> > knows if jakarta already have this implemented?
> >
> > 4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed above, does everyone agrees
> > in using JAXB?
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Denes
> >
> > Citando Jonathan Duty <jduty@jonandkerry.com>:
> > > Great.  Lets get a maven project stub generated and get started.  Any
> > > ideas for planning?
> > >
> > > ~Jonathan
> > >
> > > Weston M. Price wrote:
> > > >Right on dude....
> > > >
> > > >You nailed it....especially in terms of the relationship between the
> > > >controller and the two...well at this point we will call them
> > >
> > > services....The
> > >
> > > >"manager" cooridinates the interaction between the two...I am of the
> > >
> > > personal
> > >
> > > >mind that the verification service should have no knowledge (at least
> in
> > > >terms of hard references, we will share code) of the deployment
> service.
> > >
> > > This
> > >
> > > >would allow the modules to be distinct....this would naturally dictate
> a
> > > >common set of classes shared between us which could possibly be it's
> own
> > > >module, perhaps the objects implementing the javax interfaces.
> > > >
> > > >Weston
> > > >
> > > >On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> > > >>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
> 


-- 
Existem 10 tipos de pessoas: as que entendem binário e as que não.

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

Mime
View raw message