geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Srihari S" <sriha...@blr.pin.philips.com>
Subject RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2003 04:57:20 GMT
I completely agree to what jonathan says.. i got a print copy of the
deployment specs and read them beyond midnite:)
Once we have gone thru it we can touchbase again...
In a lighter vein....looking at the number mails we exchanged since
yesterday any one will hardly say call deployment
as unsexy:)
just see the momentum man!!!!


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Duty [mailto:jduty@jonandkerry.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 2:05 AM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier


Agreed.  I think the first thing we all need to do (atleast those who
want to do this module) is read the sun deployment specs.  If we want to
create something that not only can be used for Gerinomo, but for other
stuff we have to do it with a good understanding of what the
specifications are.  Once you've read the specs make sure you let others
know so they know who to go to for questions.  That will be my homework
reading tonight.

Deployment Specs
http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=88

Question: I noticed that the most recent docs are from July 2002.  Has
nothing change since then?

~Jonathan

Weston M. Price wrote:

>I guess first and foremost,
>
>IMO
>
>Let's have fun with this module...man, we have banged around on this list
all
>day and I believe we have really worked out some excellent ideas. I know I
>have gained a great deal by just being involved...but let's not forget, we
>are supposed to enjoy doing this, this is Apache right? Verification and
>deployment are two of the most un-sexy ideas in J2EE, in fact, next to Java
>IO (prior to NIO) I can't think of anything more dull....well, save for
maybe
>the Boston RedSox..(sigh, ignore that)...However, I am pretty pumped about
>this.....I get to develop code with smart engaging personalities (some that
>get up before noon) and just have a blast....so, let's just take it step by
>step and see what comes up....I have already heard about a million ideas
that
>are great....the basic module structure could use some comments...so let's
>just role with it...
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Weston
>
>
>
>
>
>On Monday 11 August 2003 07:33 pm, denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
>
>
>>Agreed. I`m not familiar with maven yet. Definitively needs help on
that...
>>
>>About planning: I think that all of us agreed that the deployment verifier
>>will have to be a component: it will have to receive the ear file from
>>somewhere and do all the tasks without any help of external entities. This
>>way, it can be placed in the client GUI, in the server, we can create an
>>ant task for it, and so on.
>>
>>Some thoughs about the verifier:
>>
>>1. It should have an interface for rules. This interface will allow each
>>rule implemented in a distinct class (several rules can be implemented in
>>the same class either). Not sure about performance issues yet, but IMO
this
>>is the best that can be done to make sure that new rules added/removed
from
>>specs will be promptly integrated into verifier. I'm thinking in Chain of
>>Responsability to manage the rules, but each rule will have to say about
>>what domain it`s related (home interfaces rules, local interfaces rules,
>>session rules and so on). One "class rule" can be related to more than one
>>domain. This will speed up the process, as the verifies asks only the
rules
>>related to the domain that it`s verifying at moment;
>>
>>2. It should have an interface for expressing rules violations, like
>>ActionError on Struts. This interface should allow to query about what
>>section was violated, the message related to the error (with i18n for sure
>>;) ), the offendind class and so on. This way, any tool that want to use
>>the validator can get the error lists and manipulate them as they want;
IMO
>>this is better than exceptions because we can generate several violations
>>at once and is better that string messages because gives more flexibility.
>>
>>3. The validator will have to read the application.xml and ejb-jar.xml
>>files to do the job (specific deployment files like jboss.xml would be
>>interesting but have to be integrated in a really modular way). The point
>>is that the server will have to read these file as well to startup the
>>application. So, the reader should be placed in a common lib. Do anyone
>>knows if jakarta already have this implemented?
>>
>>4. If we will write the XMLs readers decribed above, does everyone agrees
>>in using JAXB?
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Denes
>>
>>Citando Jonathan Duty <jduty@jonandkerry.com>:
>>
>>
>>>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