geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: Geronimo Deployment Descriptors
Date Mon, 08 Sep 2003 11:58:17 GMT
	FYI, JSR-88 requires that a tool be able to save and load its
server-specific deployment information to a file separate from the
packaged module.  Now, when it comes time to actually deploy, it's given
access to the module (as a File or InputStream), so it could dynamically
unpack the module, overwrite the standard DD, and repack the module, but
it seems like a bit of a hack.

	One of the consequences of this that I haven't given much thought
to is that we need some format where we can store all the server-specific
deployment information for an EAR and all the modules in it to a single
save file.  Then we'd also need to either have a deployment mechanism
accepting an EAR and a Map (presumably) of DDs, or we'd need to repack the
whole thing anyway.  I'd still prefer to avoid the repacking, if for no
other reasons than it won't perform well and we don't have a very good
solution for using disk space from our JSR-88 plugin.

	On the other hand, I guess there's no reason why we couldn't
conceptually say the server-specific content goes in the standard DD, but
when we deploy through JSR-88 we ignore the standard DD and treat our
external copy as the true standard DD.  But I think this pretty much
reduces to what Jeremy is advocating, since the files are actually going
to be different, regardless of whther we think of them as having the same
name or not.

Aaron

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, James Strachan wrote:
> Quick question. While the J2EE specs might be moving away from the 
> 'embedding namespaced-extensions inside the standard XML descriptors' - 
> is there anything in the spec anywhere which says a container cannot 
> support it? i.e. could one of our options be to use our deployment 
> extensions inside the standard deployment descriptors. This would avoid 
> some of Gregs concerns - we can just use web.xml and ejb-jar.xml with 
> our extensions inside it.
> 
> There seems to be a few different ways of skinning this particular cat 
> and it seems to depend on your exact usage patterns. For developers 
> wishing to target many different containers for a single deployment 
> unit then making a standard deployment descriptor + extra container 
> specific files seems the best approach. In this model a tool like 
> XDoclet would probably be used and so the fact that duplicate stuff 
> occurs in geronimo-ejb-jar.xml and ejb-jar.xml probably wouldn't be 
> that much of an issue.
> 
> Another class of users could be those targeting just Geronimo - where 
> they have no main need to also support other containers - in which case 
> they may prefer to embed the Geronimo extensions directly inside 
> web.xml or ejb-jar.xml etc.
> 
> The other option is Jeremy's approach, where the standard deployment 
> descriptors remain completely clean & so guaranteed to work on any 
> container - and the geronimo-*.xml overload them.
> 
> I can see all these approaches having value to users; so having a way 
> for folks to configure Geronimo to suit their needs sounds like a good 
> idea.
> 
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> 


Mime
View raw message