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 DeploymentManager ( was J2EE deployment verifier)
Date Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:13:00 GMT
It doesn't matter that much to me. I think we can get
by with them separately. What does everyone else
think?

--- Jonathan Duty <jduty@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> Do you want the DDBeans to be part of this module?
> ~Jonathan
> 
> Jonathan Duty
> Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:59 AM
> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: J2EE DeploymentManager ( was J2EE
> deployment verifier)
> 
> I would like to start implementing the DDBeans from
> JSR-88. I will start a new thread for JSR-88.
> 
> 
> 
> --- Srihari S <sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > cool...so what are we waiting for!!!!
> > lets get started with the requirements/design of
> the
> > verifier..
> > any ideas on the way of working for these phases..
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Duty [mailto:jduty@jonandkerry.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:14 PM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> > weston_p@yahoo.com
> > Subject: RE: J2EE DeploymentManager ( was J2EE
> > deployment verifier)
> > 
> > 
> > I agree.  The verification engine really doesn't
> > need to implement the
> > deployment specs.  Later when we implement the
> > DeploymentManager in
> > front of it that's when we will have to worry
> about
> > implementing the
> > exact interfaces.  
> > 
> > ~Jonathan
> > 
> > 
> > Jonathan Duty
> > Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 5:48 AM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: J2EE DeploymentManager ( was J2EE
> > deployment verifier)
> > 
> > I agree with Srihari in that the Verification
> > manager does not have to 
> > implement the spec interfaces, however, the
> > DeploymentManager does, this
> > 
> > would be where we would implment DDRoot, DDConfig
> > etc.....in some ways
> > the 
> > DeploymentManager would just use the services of
> the
> > VerificatinoEngine
> > as 
> > one step in the process of actual deployment. 
> > 
> > Is this in line with what you guys were thinking?
> > 
> > 
> > On Wednesday 13 August 2003 01:52 pm, Jonathan
> Duty
> > wrote:
> > > When we implement this module, we could actually
> > implement it to
> > exactly
> > > follow the API specs (JSR 88).  That means
> > implementing the
> > > DeploymentManager interface on top of it and
> such.
> >  That way any
> > > application (ant, Eclipse, etc) that is equipped
> > to deploy packages
> > > could interface with it.  It would just fall
> short
> > of actually
> > > communicating with MBeans and deploying the
> > package.
> > >
> > > When this module is used internally (within the
> > REAL deployment
> > manager)
> > > it could just bypass or override the
> > Verification's Deployment
> > manager.
> > >
> > > ~Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Srihari S
> > [mailto:sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:43 AM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> > weston_p@yahoo.com
> > > Subject: RE: J2EE DeploymentManager ( was J2EE
> > deployment verifier)
> > >
> > > Hi All
> > >   When I was going thru the deployment api spec
> I
> > thought it would be
> > > good
> > > to bring up some points:
> > >
> > > From a preliminary reading of the spec i saw
> there
> > are no apis
> > > explicitly
> > > designed to do the verification
> > > of a deployable unit. From this I infer that the
> > verifier can be an
> > > internal
> > > module which could be used
> > > by the deploy tool. So we could go full steam on
> > its design and
> > > implementation. In this regard I am trying to
> > > jot the list of checks that our verifier will
> have
> > to do (This is
> > > mentioned
> > > in the j2ee specs).
> > > So in a way it will be equivalent to arriving at
> > requirement specs for
> > > the
> > > verifier.
> > > With the list of dos and donts that a verifier
> has
> > to achieve we could
> > > go
> > > abt with design.Also the design of
> > > ant hooks can be taken care.Can we??
> > >
> > > Next is something abt the big picture. Certainly
> > the verifer is a
> > small
> > > part
> > > of the deployment process.
> > > But to achieve compliance we will have to
> > implement the deployment
> > spec
> > > as a
> > > whole. Has anyone given
> > > thought to this issue?
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Hari
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price
> [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 1:33 AM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE DeploymentManager ( was J2EE
> > deployment verifier)
> > >
> > >
> > > No, I think splitting them up would be good....
> > >
> > > Weston
> > >
> > > On Tuesday 12 August 2003 11:41 pm, Jonathan
> Duty
> > wrote:
> > > > I'm creating a maven module to add to the cvs
> > project.
> > > > Do we want to plan on the DeploymentManager,
> > VerificationEngine, and
> > > > DeploymentEngine being in one module?
> > > >
> > > > What do you all think?
> > > >
> > > > ~Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > Weston M. Price wrote:
> > > > >Just thought I should start a new thread....
> > > > >
> > > > >My KMail was getting dominated!
> > > > >
> > > > >Weston
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===


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

Mime
View raw message