geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Duty <jd...@jonandkerry.com>
Subject Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Date Mon, 11 Aug 2003 16:48:34 GMT
Since I'm weird and think better in pictures, I tried to draw what you 
were describing.  Do I have the correct Idea of your vision? 
The image is attached.  Hope this helps others out also.
~Jonathan



Weston M. Price wrote:

>I have thought of it in terms of a deployment manager (as Chris alluded to 
>earlier this morning). The manager would be responsible for coordinating the 
>interaction between the verification engine and the deployment engine....sort 
>of a controller, that way the two can be loosely coupled relying on an 
>external agent to provide an higher level of service, in this case the 
>complete deployment of a J2EE archive.
>
>Weston
>
>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:05 pm, Labeeb Syed wrote:
>  
>
>>In this scenario, the verifier will have to interface
>>with the deployer. I would definitely like to
>>implement the SPI for the deployer.
>>
>>Q: Should the deployer be responsible for ensuring
>>bean consistency, e.g., entity bean cmr mapping vs
>>databases and relational mappings, or any such other
>>technical issues (realms checking, etc.)?
>>
>>Chris, if this is what we'd work on, I'd like to come
>>up with a list potential technical problems we could
>>encounter to ensure just integrity of the DD file.
>>
>>Labeeb Syed
>>
>>--- Chris Opacki <chris_opacki@yahoo.com> 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]
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>=== message truncated ===
>>
>>
>>__________________________________
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>>    
>>

Mime
View raw message