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 15:55:34 GMT
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
> > > > >
> > > > > 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]
> 
=== message truncated ===


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

Mime
View raw message