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 15:11:39 GMT
Plus,
We could create hooks into this module for not only ant, but JEdit,
Eclipse, whatever gui tool they create for Gerinomo and other IDE tools.


~Jonathan 

Jonathan Duty
Software Developer - eWashtenaw


-----Original Message-----
From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:50 AM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier

The neat thing is that we can actually conceive of pluggable
verification 
modules:

	WebSphere
	WebLogic
	JBoss
	
Incorporating these particular appservers idiosyncracies and allowing
for 
particular extensions....all this is down the road of course...but you
see 
what I mean.

Weston

On Monday 11 August 2003 02:54 pm, Jonathan Duty 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
> > >
> > > 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