geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Weston M. Price" <westo...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Date Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:15:54 GMT
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
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to
> >
> > j2ee
> >
> > > > 1.4 spec
> > > >
> > > > > lets have a common understanding on this...u
> >
> > cud
> >
> > > > specify the correct
> > > >
> > > > > version
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Chris Opacki
> >
> > [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> > > >
> > > > weston_p@yahoo.com
> > > >
> > > > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It
> >
> > also
> >
> > > > > provides a high level architecture describe
> >
> > the
> >
> > > > > relations between deployable components and
> > > >
> > > > objects in
> > > >
> > > > > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> > > >
> > > > interesting
> > > >
> > > > > read.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Srihari S <sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end
> >
> > up
> >
> > > > using
> > > >
> > > > > > the rule engine concept
> > > > > > it will because of u:)
> > > > > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> > > >
> > > > verifier as
> > > >
> > > > > > 	Input 	Process 				Output
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 	JAR		Verify the correctness 		OK/NOK
> >
> > with
> >
> > > error
> > >
> > > > log
> > > >
> > > > > > 	WAR		by parsing the DD
> > > > > > 	EAR		and applying correctness
> > > > > > 	RAR		rules
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > > > > standalone app and we must
> > > > > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > > > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on
> >
> > how
> >
> > > > it
> > > >
> > > > > > will get into the
> > > > > > geronimo frwk
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Weston M. Price
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Mime
View raw message