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 18:43:15 GMT
Great.  Lets get a maven project stub generated and get started.  Any 
ideas for planning?

~Jonathan

Weston M. Price wrote:

>Right on dude....
>
>You nailed it....especially in terms of the relationship between the 
>controller and the two...well at this point we will call them services....The 
>"manager" cooridinates the interaction between the two...I am of the personal 
>mind that the verification service should have no knowledge (at least in 
>terms of hard references, we will share code) of the deployment service. This 
>would allow the modules to be distinct....this would naturally dictate a 
>common set of classes shared between us which could possibly be it's own 
>module, perhaps the objects implementing the javax interfaces.
>
>Weston
>
>
>
>
>
>On Monday 11 August 2003 04:48 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
>  
>
>>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