On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, n. alex rupp wrote:
> My point here is that versioning issues should be resolved in the EJB and
> Servlet containers respectively, not by the application loader.  I remember
> discussions specifically regarding the above example from several weeks ago
> occurring between dain and jeremy.

	That's certainly a possibility.  I thought the deployer would need
to be involved because I don't think you'd actually want to remove the old
files before that version of that app is fully disposed of.  The
straightforward approach of just overwriting an old EAR with a new one
might inadvertently defeat some process where we phase in the new app and
phase out the old app.  Perhaps it would be best to put some digits or a
timestamp as part of the file name of any application we distribute.  For
instance, if the user provides a new version of "foo.ear" we save it as
"foo.ear.123" or something.  Then the EJB/Web/Connector containers could
acess both the new content (foo.ear.123) and the old content (foo.ear.122) 
until they're finished, at which time perhaps there could be a callback or 
something to make sure the old version is deleted.

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, n. alex rupp wrote:
> 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.

	Okay, well, we can drop it for now, I don't feel all that 
strongly.

Aaron