Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Message-ID: <20030811160545.23559.qmail@web41209.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Labeeb Syed <anhkheg@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <20030811155534.76489.qmail@web11002.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

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