Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Message-ID: <20030811194612.2464.qmail@web11008.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Opacki <chris_opacki@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org, weston_p@yahoo.com
In-Reply-To: <200308111526.59503.weston_p@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I count three important pieces for the moment...

.. Verifier
.. Loader - CASTOR or JAXB - Build the DDBeans..etc..
.. Deploy Tool

Do we want to place the Verifier and Deploy Tool in to
separate modules? Is anyone out there suppose to be
the project champion? I'm just worried that we are all
getting ready to mount or horses. 

I still think it would be good to share the DD Beans.

Wish I didn't have to do real work! This is definitely
more compelling.


--- "Weston M. Price" <weston_p@yahoo.com> 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.
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com