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 14:54:39 GMT
+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
> >
> > On Monday 11 August 2003 01:50 pm, Srihari S wrote:
> > > just a clarification..i hope ur referring to j2ee
> >
> > 1.4 spec
> >
> > > lets have a common understanding on this...u cud
> >
> > specify the correct
> >
> > > version
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:02 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> >
> > weston_p@yahoo.com
> >
> > > Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > The specs also provides a basic SPI API. It also
> > > provides a high level architecture describe the
> > > relations between deployable components and
> >
> > objects in
> >
> > > the deploymeny tool and manager. It's an
> >
> > interesting
> >
> > > read.
> > >
> > > --- Srihari S <sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > never mind ur choice of words....if we end up
> >
> > using
> >
> > > > the rule engine concept
> > > > it will because of u:)
> > > > So at a very hi level we can look at the
> >
> > verifier as
> >
> > > > 	Input 	Process 				Output
> > > >
> > > > 	JAR		Verify the correctness 		OK/NOK
with
>
> error
>
> > log
> >
> > > > 	WAR		by parsing the DD
> > > > 	EAR		and applying correctness
> > > > 	RAR		rules
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > While it is true that the verifier can be a
> > > > standalone app and we must
> > > > design its internals in this spirit
> > > > it may also be worthwhile to decide early on how
> >
> > it
> >
> > > > will get into the
> > > > geronimo frwk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> >
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> >
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:04 PM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As a modular component I think this J2EE
> >
> > verifier
> >
> > > > engine/processor would be
> > > > very useful in a number of projects; it could
> >
> > even
> >
> > > > be a standalone module
> > > > that would allow a developer to validate their
> > > > archive before ever even
> > > > trying to deploy it in a target environment. Of
> > > > course, you wouldn't be able
> > > > to see those 100+ line stack traces roll across
> >
> > your
> >
> > > > tty when you go to
> > > > deploy your archive; that would be the one
> > > > drawback....
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 08:26 am, Weston M.
> >
> > Price
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Yeah, I knew that term was going to come back
> >
> > at
> >
> > > > me, poor choice of words
> > > >
> > > > > on my part. I was basically thinking in terms
> >
> > of
> >
> > > > "rules" as conditions
> > > > that
> > > >
> > > > > need to be satisfied to fulfill a deployment;
> >
> > not
> >
> > > > in terms of a full blown
> > > >
> > > > > rules engine (though this would be somewhat
> > > >
> > > > interesting). At the very core
> > > >
> > > > > what you really have is a set of conditions
> >
> > that
> >
> > > > when applied to a
> > > >
> > > > > deployable unit (EAR, WAR, SAR etc) must be
> >
> > met
> >
> > > > for the archive to be
> > > >
> > > > > deployed. A verifier exists as sort of a
> >
> > watchdog
> >
> > > > that prevents archives
> > > >
> > > > > from violating a discreet set of constraints.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday 11 August 2003 12:36 pm, Srihari S
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > i did not have this rule engine picture when
> >
> > i
> >
> > > > started thinking abt this
> > > >
> > > > > > verifier..
> > > > > > ru looking at the design of some open src
> >
> > rule
> >
> > > > engines for designing
> > > > this
> > > >
> > > > > > verifier?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > > >
> > > > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > >
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:12 PM
> > > > > > To: Srihari S;
> >
> > geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's an interesting subject for a few
> >
> > reasons:
> > > > > > 	What we are really talking about is a type
> >
> > of
> >
> > > > rules engine where
> > > > certain
> > > >
> > > > > > conditions have to be met to achieve a
> > > >
> > > > successful "deployment". The most
> > > >
> > > > > > intriguing aspect, at least to me, would be
> >
> > to
> >
> > > > make this module
> > > >
> > > > > > extensible and "forward looking" because we
> >
> > all
> >
> > > > know that specifications
> > > >
> > > > > > are static and never change right? :-) As
> > > >
> > > > Geronimo grows with J2EE (and
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com


Mime
View raw message