geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: [core] why org.apache.geronimo.enterprise.deploy.provider package?
Date Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:36:38 GMT
I agree that the product provider stuff is the stuff should be separate 
from the tools.  Our deployment system should fully support the product 
provider stuff plus a bunch of add-on features, so putting it all in a 
single deployment package seems right to me.

For the tools, I think we should have a tools module with packages 
something like this:


Each of these packages would support management tasks and deployment 
task (I classify deployment as just another management task).


On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 08:35 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Alex Blewitt wrote:
>> 'provider' is too generic a name. Would this mean 'mail provider'?
>> 'session replication provider?' A package without a definite 
>> definition
>> isn't going to solve the problems.
> 	If you look at the spec, there's a section for the "product
> provider" and a section called "tool provider".  We split this into 
> "tool"
> (tool provider) and "provider" (product provider), since at the time it
> seemed better than "tool" and "product".  Anything you can some up 
> with to
> distinguish "tool" from "product" is good.  They ought to go in 
> different
> packages, because they need to go in different JARs.
>> The reason why the 'enterprise', and indeed, 'deploy' were part of the
>> package name were to say that these were relating to the deployment of
>> enterprise code, as opposed to a generic provider.
> 	Actually, geronimo.enterprise.deploy was chosen because
> "deployment" was taken and the JSR-88 package is 
> "javax.enterprise.deploy"
> so it seemed like mirroring it would be the best strategy in the short
> term.
> Aaron

View raw message