geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Opacki <chris_opa...@yahoo.com>
Subject RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Date Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:10:50 GMT
Well. I read the spec last night and there is quite a
bit to hold on to. The deployer is responsible for
things such as configuration, distribution and
start/stopping deployable objects. Redeploying is
optional. The tool provider is responsible for
implementing javax.enterprise.deploy.model (Some of
these implementation are introspected from our
configuration file.) This is why I was thinking that
they would have some type of association. The verifier
and deployer might want to share some objects.

--- Jonathan Duty <jduty@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> +1 I agree.
> 
> Jonathan Duty
> Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Srihari S
> [mailto:sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com] 
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:49 AM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> 
> i still feel they can be friends...the deploy tool
> will do the
> verification
> as a part of the deployment process
> then it can use the apis that we develop.
> Chris, u seem to have done some homework on the
> deployment apis..can u
> throw
> some light on what it says w.r.t the
> verification process
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:53 PM
> 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
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As a modular component I think this J2EE
> > verifier
> > > > engine/processor would be
> > > > very useful in a number of projects; it could
> > even
> > > > be a standalone module
> > > > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > > > archive before ever even
> > > > trying to deploy it in a target environment.
> Of
> > > > course, you wouldn't be able
> > > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll
> across
> > your
> > > > tty when you go to
> > > > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > > > drawback....
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M.
> > Price
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come
> back
> > at
> > > >
> > > > me, poor choice of words
> > > >
> > > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in
> terms
> > of
> > > >
> > > > "rules" as conditions
> > > > that
> > > >
> > > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a
> deployment;
> > not
> > > >
> > > > in terms of a full blown
> > > >
> > > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > > >
> > > > interesting). At the very core
> > > >
> > > > > what you really have is a set of conditions
> > that
> > > >
> > > > when applied to a
> > > >
> > > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be
> > met
> > > >
> > > > for the archive to be
> > > >
> > > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> > watchdog
> > > >
> > > > that prevents archives
> > > >
> > > > > from violating a discreet set of
> constraints.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture
> when
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Mime
View raw message