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 16:37:54 GMT
I have the javax.enterprise.deployment classes
downloaded from sun. Do we need anything else to start
the DDBean implementations? I'm not sure if anyone
else has started on these things... Jon Duty and I
(and anyone else interested) are ready to start on
these things.

--- Aaron Mulder <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu>
wrote:
> 	IMHO the verifier and DDBeans should definitely be
> separate.  
> Presumably there will be some in-memory
> representation of the deployment
> information for EARs, EARs, JARs, etc. as well as a
> ClassLoader or some
> such where the actual classes are available.  I
> think the verifier and
> DDBeans would both want to operate based on these. 
> If the JSR-88 server
> impl wants to verify, it can populate the object
> tree and then run the
> verified on it, and if the server wants to verify it
> will likely already 
> have the object tree and can just run the verifier.
> 
> 	In any case, it also strikes me as better design to
> separate these 
> two bits of functionality ("configure J2EE metadata"
> and "validate  
> the contents of an EAR") instead of unnecessarily
> tying them together.
> 
> 	Finally, I'll be happy to contribute the
> javax.enterprise.deployment classes, but per the
> above I don't think this
> is necessary for starting on the verifier.
> 
> Aaron
> 
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Chris Opacki wrote:
> > 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
> 
=== message truncated ===


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

Mime
View raw message