geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "gianny DAMOUR" <gianny_dam...@hotmail.com>
Subject Re: [webapp deployment] Progress (was Re: [Deployment] Application Deployment Status)
Date Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:42:20 GMT
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:32:46 -0400 (EDT), Aaron Mulder wrote:
>Just to kind of recap where we are (I think):
>
>  - I favor a central deployer which delegates only where necessary
>  - Jan favors separate deployers per module, with a common base class
>  - We seem to be more or less in agreement on the API, whichever way it
>ends up being implemented
>  - Gianny was going to put together some sample code
>
>I think I'm fine going ahead with something more like what Jan is
>proposing, though I'm still not convinced that it's the best approach
>(commentary below).  Gianny, are you still going to be putting out a
>proposal/sample?
Yes, sorry for this delay. You can have a look to GERONIMO-102.

This sample code implements a base-class, ModuleDeploymentSupport, to be 
extended by deployment planners of J2EE modules. As discussed, a meta-data 
repository MBean, DeploymentMetaData, is created by this base class 
automatically. Sub-classes MUST implement the method getJ2EEModulePlan in 
order to add module specific tasks to the deployment plan.

AbstractWebContainer has been migrated. In the previous implementation, 
there was two deployment plans. I tend to prefer a single plan for the 
following reason: if the second plan (the one in charge of the registration 
of the web app) throws a deployment exception, it is rolled-back but the 
first one is not. I have also added a StartRecursiveMBeanInstance task in 
order to "start recursive" the meta-data MBean and hence the child Web 
application.

Gianny

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme vous !  
http://search.msn.fr


Mime
View raw message