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 15:18:49 GMT
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