Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
From: "Srihari S" <sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com>
To: <geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: RE: J2EE deployment verifier
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:07:29 +0530
Message-ID: <EFEDJOIJIJCOIPKLLGBJIEDBCAAA.sriharis@blr.pin.philips.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20030811232000.33071.qmail@web11008.mail.yahoo.com>

chris, jonathan, weston...anybody there

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Opacki [mailto:chris_opacki@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:50 AM
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: J2EE deployment verifier


here here
--- Jonathan Duty <jduty@jonandkerry.com> wrote:
> I was thinking.  After developing this module, we
> will all be very 
> versed in the J2EE Deployment Specs.  Our team could
> have 3 phases:
> 
> 1) research and development of Verification Module
> 
> 2) development of Deployment module
> 
> 3) Development of Deployment Manager
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> ~Jonathan
> 
> denes@ppgia.pucpr.br wrote:
> 
> >I agree with Weston on the modules separation:
> >
> >I`m realy focused on module three. So I would like
> to work more closely on 
> >that. Wish to help on others modules too, but I`m
> already working on the 
> >verifier... I will have something more tangeable
> really soon, assuming that the 
> >architecture that I described earlier is ok. Which
> is best to show the 
> >interfaces: commented source code or a gif with the
> class diagram, or both?
> >
> >I`m not familiar with apache`s development process,
> but I`m assuming that I 
> >will submit the interfaces for approval, do the
> changes that shows necessary 
> >and then proceed to implement something to prove
> that works. Is that correct? 
> >
> >Thanks
> >Denes
> >
> >Citando "Weston M. Price" <weston_p@yahoo.com>:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Well, is someone going to assume a "lead" position
> on this? I am not sure how
> >>
> >>the structure is going to work. Basically I am
> thinking in these terms:
> >>
> >>Module One: common 
> >>	Source that is applicable to both the deployment
> module and the 
> >>    
> >>
> >verification
> >  
> >
> >>service (JVXS) Included here would be all
> appropriate interfaces to be 
> >>compliant with J2EE specifications. The
> DeploymentManager would be included
> >>
> >>in this module as well.
> >>
> >>Module Two:
> >>	Deployment
> >>
> >>Module Three:
> >>	Verification
> >>
> >>I think we can start another module under
> CVS.....I don't have committing 
> >>rights on Geronimo....
> >>
> >>
> >>I am new to Maven so I am kind of fuddling my way
> around all this stuff. If
> >>we 
> >>can't check into Geronimo, does someone have space
> for code, docs, scripts,
> >>
> >>models etc? I do, but my pipes in are somewhat
> slow (sigh...satellite no 
> >>less....never live in the woods dudes)....
> >>
> >>
> >>Weston
> >>
> >>On Monday 11 August 2003 06:43 pm, Jonathan Duty
> wrote:
> >>    
> >>
> >>>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
> 
=== message truncated ===


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