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 Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:41:17 GMT
I'm here.  Can we use the J2EE Deployment Manager Thread.   My email 
client is getting trashed by this one.
Thanks,
Jonathan

Srihari S wrote:

>chris, jonathan, weston...anybody there
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:50 AM
>To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
>
>
>here here
>--- Jonathan Duty <jduty@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>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
>>
>>    
>>
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>  
>

Mime
View raw message