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 22:01:01 GMT
I was thinking.  After developing this module, we will all be very 
versed in the J2EE Deployment Specs.  Our team could have 3 phases:

1) research and development of Verification Module

2) development of Deployment module

3) Development of Deployment Manager

Any thoughts?

~Jonathan

denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:

>I agree with Weston on the modules separation:
>
>I`m realy focused on module three. So I would like to work more closely on 
>that. Wish to help on others modules too, but I`m already working on the 
>verifier... I will have something more tangeable really soon, assuming that the 
>architecture that I described earlier is ok. Which is best to show the 
>interfaces: commented source code or a gif with the class diagram, or both?
>
>I`m not familiar with apache`s development process, but I`m assuming that I 
>will submit the interfaces for approval, do the changes that shows necessary 
>and then proceed to implement something to prove that works. Is that correct? 
>
>Thanks
>Denes
>
>Citando "Weston M. Price" <weston_p@yahoo.com>:
>
>  
>
>>Well, is someone going to assume a "lead" position on this? I am not sure how
>>
>>the structure is going to work. Basically I am thinking in these terms:
>>
>>Module One: common 
>>	Source that is applicable to both the deployment module and the 
>>    
>>
>verification
>  
>
>>service (JVXS) Included here would be all appropriate interfaces to be 
>>compliant with J2EE specifications. The DeploymentManager would be included
>>
>>in this module as well.
>>
>>Module Two:
>>	Deployment
>>
>>Module Three:
>>	Verification
>>
>>I think we can start another module under CVS.....I don't have committing 
>>rights on Geronimo....
>>
>>
>>I am new to Maven so I am kind of fuddling my way around all this stuff. If
>>we 
>>can't check into Geronimo, does someone have space for code, docs, scripts,
>>
>>models etc? I do, but my pipes in are somewhat slow (sigh...satellite no 
>>less....never live in the woods dudes)....
>>
>>
>>Weston
>>
>>On Monday 11 August 2003 06:43 pm, Jonathan Duty wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>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