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 12:04:25 GMT
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