Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
From: "Weston M. Price" <weston_p@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: weston_p@yahoo.com
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:15:26 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9
References: <20030811160545.23559.qmail@web41209.mail.yahoo.com>
 <3F37E3C3.8010806@jonandkerry.com>
 <1060630390.3f37ef7647965@wwws.ppgia.pucpr.br>
In-Reply-To: <1060630390.3f37ef7647965@wwws.ppgia.pucpr.br>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200308111515.26189.weston_p@yahoo.com>

Castor.


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