geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "n. alex rupp" <>
Subject Re: [Deployment] Directories
Date Fri, 03 Oct 2003 19:47:34 GMT
It's like . . . we're not communicating  =)

> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Aaron Mulder opined . . .
> > ...
> > Anything that is explicitly deploying an application should *NOT* do it
> > by copying stuff into the deploy directory. Instead it should pass a URL
> > to the DeploymentPlanner and let it figure out the details.
> > ...
> > So basically, distribution is a different problem from deployment.
> ...
> > On the role of versioned applications, this needs to be carefully
> > thought out. There are some basic design issues, like at what point does
> > the transition happen e.g. on method call, HTTP request, HTTP Session
> > start, ... This determines how long the two versions co-exist.
> >
> > I am not sure we've all thought this through yet :-)
> Yes, well, that's why we're thinking it through now!  :)  Again, I
> don't think we have to solve the versioning issue today, but I thought it
> was worth including in the discussion.

Jesus God Man! (cops an imitation Hunter S. Thompson voice) Don't shout!
The wild dogs will hear. . . .

We should fork this thread and attend to the versioning issue at a more
relaxed pace after we've all had some time to mull over it.

> Another aspect of this issue is server startup.  For most aspects
> of the server, there is some configuration file or other that is read
> during startup.  But that is not currently the case for applications.

Sure it is.  There are the web.xml and application.xml files--deployment
descriptors.  There's also a service descriptor.

> ...
> Also, if we have this "distributed" directory, is the user allowed to put
> stuff in there?  I would like them not to.  If they update something in
> there, we'd probably ignore it.  But what if they take down the server,
> add a new EAR to the "distributed" directory, and then start up the server
> again?

Exactly my point from before.  People will meddle if they are allowed to,
and I can't really fault them for that.  We'd be doing them and ourselves a
favor to come up with a way to handle distributed application deployments
without creating a separate directory for them.  There must be some way to
flag an archive through its config files or some such so that it loads into
the "stopped" state, or does not load until instructed.

> Should it be ignored, loaded but not started, or started?

It shouldn't be put there to begin with.  =)

> My
> prefernce would be to try to make it clear that if a user wants to deploy
> by manipulating files, they should use the "deploy" dir, and if they want
> to deploy via JSR-88, they should expect the server to use the
> "distributed" dir under the covers.

Sorry, man.  -1
I'm not convinced.

In my humble opinion,
N. Alex Rupp (the humble and opinionated)

View raw message