geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Blewitt <>
Subject Re: [XML][Deployment]POJO design?
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:15:34 GMT
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 15:56 Europe/London, James Strachan wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 01:06  pm, Alex Blewitt wrote:
>> You could set the bridge up so that Geronimo doesn't even have to 
>> care about what the types are (and/or generate delegation methods to 
>> their normal counterparts). Plus, it could then be extended to deal 
>> with other flavours, such as the WebSphere or Weblogic deployment 
>> descriptors at the same time.
> Whoah. I know about bridges and the like. I'm asking *why* do we have 
> to support any other deployment metadata other than Geronimo. e.g. why 
> should the Geronimo project ever have to deal with non-Geronimo 
> metadata. Lets figure out the use cases first before we dive off 
> coding stuff we don't need.

Good thinking. What could this allow us to do, and would those 
extensions be useful?

For starters, having separate Geronimo beans over the standard would 
make it interoperate better with other containers and their deployment 
stuff. For example, if the deployment tool was integrated into an IDE, 
then it may be desirable to generate DDs for not only Geronimo, but 
also other app servers as well. A bridge could solve that.

IMHO it's a lot better to take an EAR that has been pre-configured for 
straight installation into a server than to have to do setup (where 
possible). As such, some EARs have deployment configuration/code in 
them already which allows them to be plugged straight in with no or 
minimal intervention.

But in terms of deploying directly into Geronimo, this may not matter.

So can anyone else think of other advantages/uses that this would give 
that others don't? If not, we may not need it.


View raw message