geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject RE: J2EE DeploymentManager ( was J2EE deployment verifier)
Date Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:04:53 GMT
	IMHO the verifier and DDBeans should definitely be separate.  
Presumably there will be some in-memory representation of the deployment
information for EARs, EARs, JARs, etc. as well as a ClassLoader or some
such where the actual classes are available.  I think the verifier and
DDBeans would both want to operate based on these.  If the JSR-88 server
impl wants to verify, it can populate the object tree and then run the
verified on it, and if the server wants to verify it will likely already 
have the object tree and can just run the verifier.

	In any case, it also strikes me as better design to separate these 
two bits of functionality ("configure J2EE metadata" and "validate  
the contents of an EAR") instead of unnecessarily tying them together.

	Finally, I'll be happy to contribute the
javax.enterprise.deployment classes, but per the above I don't think this
is necessary for starting on the verifier.

Aaron

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Chris Opacki wrote:
> It doesn't matter that much to me. I think we can get
> by with them separately. What does everyone else
> think?
> 
> --- Jonathan Duty <jduty@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> > Do you want the DDBeans to be part of this module?
> > ~Jonathan
> > 
> > Jonathan Duty
> > Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:59 AM
> > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: J2EE DeploymentManager ( was J2EE
> > deployment verifier)
> > 
> > I would like to start implementing the DDBeans from
> > JSR-88. I will start a new thread for JSR-88.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- Srihari S <sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com> wrote:
> > > cool...so what are we waiting for!!!!
> > > lets get started with the requirements/design of
> > the
> > > verifier..
> > > any ideas on the way of working for these phases..
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jonathan Duty [mailto:jduty@jonandkerry.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:14 PM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> > > weston_p@yahoo.com
> > > Subject: RE: J2EE DeploymentManager ( was J2EE
> > > deployment verifier)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I agree.  The verification engine really doesn't
> > > need to implement the
> > > deployment specs.  Later when we implement the
> > > DeploymentManager in
> > > front of it that's when we will have to worry
> > about
> > > implementing the
> > > exact interfaces.  
> > > 
> > > ~Jonathan
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Jonathan Duty
> > > Software Developer - eWashtenaw
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weston M. Price [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com] 
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 5:48 AM
> > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: J2EE DeploymentManager ( was J2EE
> > > deployment verifier)
> > > 
> > > I agree with Srihari in that the Verification
> > > manager does not have to 
> > > implement the spec interfaces, however, the
> > > DeploymentManager does, this
> > > 
> > > would be where we would implment DDRoot, DDConfig
> > > etc.....in some ways
> > > the 
> > > DeploymentManager would just use the services of
> > the
> > > VerificatinoEngine
> > > as 
> > > one step in the process of actual deployment. 
> > > 
> > > Is this in line with what you guys were thinking?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Wednesday 13 August 2003 01:52 pm, Jonathan
> > Duty
> > > wrote:
> > > > When we implement this module, we could actually
> > > implement it to
> > > exactly
> > > > follow the API specs (JSR 88).  That means
> > > implementing the
> > > > DeploymentManager interface on top of it and
> > such.
> > >  That way any
> > > > application (ant, Eclipse, etc) that is equipped
> > > to deploy packages
> > > > could interface with it.  It would just fall
> > short
> > > of actually
> > > > communicating with MBeans and deploying the
> > > package.
> > > >
> > > > When this module is used internally (within the
> > > REAL deployment
> > > manager)
> > > > it could just bypass or override the
> > > Verification's Deployment
> > > manager.
> > > >
> > > > ~Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Srihari S
> > > [mailto:sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:43 AM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> > > weston_p@yahoo.com
> > > > Subject: RE: J2EE DeploymentManager ( was J2EE
> > > deployment verifier)
> > > >
> > > > Hi All
> > > >   When I was going thru the deployment api spec
> > I
> > > thought it would be
> > > > good
> > > > to bring up some points:
> > > >
> > > > From a preliminary reading of the spec i saw
> > there
> > > are no apis
> > > > explicitly
> > > > designed to do the verification
> > > > of a deployable unit. From this I infer that the
> > > verifier can be an
> > > > internal
> > > > module which could be used
> > > > by the deploy tool. So we could go full steam on
> > > its design and
> > > > implementation. In this regard I am trying to
> > > > jot the list of checks that our verifier will
> > have
> > > to do (This is
> > > > mentioned
> > > > in the j2ee specs).
> > > > So in a way it will be equivalent to arriving at
> > > requirement specs for
> > > > the
> > > > verifier.
> > > > With the list of dos and donts that a verifier
> > has
> > > to achieve we could
> > > > go
> > > > abt with design.Also the design of
> > > > ant hooks can be taken care.Can we??
> > > >
> > > > Next is something abt the big picture. Certainly
> > > the verifer is a
> > > small
> > > > part
> > > > of the deployment process.
> > > > But to achieve compliance we will have to
> > > implement the deployment
> > > spec
> > > > as a
> > > > whole. Has anyone given
> > > > thought to this issue?
> > > >
> > > > regards
> > > > Hari
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Weston M. Price
> > [mailto:weston_p@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 1:33 AM
> > > > To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: J2EE DeploymentManager ( was J2EE
> > > deployment verifier)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, I think splitting them up would be good....
> > > >
> > > > Weston
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday 12 August 2003 11:41 pm, Jonathan
> > Duty
> > > wrote:
> > > > > I'm creating a maven module to add to the cvs
> > > project.
> > > > > Do we want to plan on the DeploymentManager,
> > > VerificationEngine, and
> > > > > DeploymentEngine being in one module?
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you all think?
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > > Weston M. Price wrote:
> > > > > >Just thought I should start a new thread....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >My KMail was getting dominated!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Weston
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> === message truncated ===
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> 





Mime
View raw message