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 15:04:03 GMT
Well, is someone going to assume a "lead" position on this? I am not sure how 
the structure is going to work. Basically I am thinking in these terms:

Module One: common 
	Source that is applicable to both the deployment module and the verification 
service (JVXS) Included here would be all appropriate interfaces to be 
compliant with J2EE specifications. The DeploymentManager would be included 
in this module as well.

Module Two:
	Deployment

Module Three:
	Verification

I think we can start another module under CVS.....I don't have committing 
rights on Geronimo....


I am new to Maven so I am kind of fuddling my way around all this stuff. If we 
can't check into Geronimo, does someone have space for code, docs, scripts, 
models etc? I do, but my pipes in are somewhat slow (sigh...satellite no 
less....never live in the woods dudes)....


Weston

On Monday 11 August 2003 06:43 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
> 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

Mime
View raw message