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 16:14:07 GMT
It is an api, but it has been described in an object
model view.  The relationships between interfaces has
been clarified. The folowing are interfaces that must
be implemented.

DeployableObject - represent an EAR, WAR, RAR, JAR etc
J2eeApplicationObject - represent an EAR...a speical
type of deployableobject

DDBean represent half or part of a DD

DDBeanRoot - the topmost part of a DD.

There are a few others. An XPathListener and an
XPathEvent and some exceptions.

Maybe this will give you an idea of the relationships
between the objects that must be implemented. The
DDBean and DDBeanRoot could be used by both tools.
Leaving the marshalling and unmarshalling of XML data
to the DDObjects. ...maybe...

--- "Weston M. Price" <weston_p@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But is it an actual object model or just an API?
> Sorry for my ignorance on 
> this, but I haven't had a chance to really get into
> the specs.
> 
> Weston
> 
> On Monday 11 August 2003 03:55 pm, Chris Opacki
> 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]
> > >
> 
=== message truncated ===


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

Mime
View raw message