Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 54471 invoked by uid 500); 13 Aug 2003 15:26:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 54397 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2003 15:26:33 -0000 Received: from gw-us1.philips.com (63.114.235.94) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Aug 2003 15:26:33 -0000 Received: from smtpscan-us2.philips.com (smtpscan-us2.philips.com [167.81.233.26]) by gw-us1.philips.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3975951A; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:26:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtpscan-us2.philips.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.philips.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D247719C77; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:26:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtprelay-hk1.philips.com (smtprelay-asp1.philips.com [130.147.65.5]) by smtpscan-us2.philips.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E9219E76; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:20:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from indpsc01.blr.pin.philips.com (indpsc01.blr.pin.philips.com [161.85.26.5]) by smtprelay-hk1.philips.com (8.9.3-p1/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id XAA20948; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:20:53 +0800 (HKT) Received: from coxxx050 (pbe113.blr.pin.philips.com [161.85.22.113]) by indpsc01.blr.pin.philips.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.6.10-1.2.2a-970219) with SMTP id UAA05563; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:51:13 GMT From: "Srihari S" To: , Subject: RE: J2EE DeploymentManager ( was J2EE deployment verifier) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:03:37 +0530 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 In-Reply-To: <61F4105C0C90474182D5D03A205F70CE01D7B283@exchange.ewashtenaw.org> X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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