geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Bartel <j...@mortbay.com>
Subject Re: Geronimo DD Changes
Date Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:26:09 GMT
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> 	We (by which I think I mean myself, Jeremy, and David J) talked a 
> bit at ApacheCon about changing our strategy on deplyoment descriptors.  
> Our conclusion was that we should split the DDs up again, so that Geronimo 
> DDs *do not* extend J2EE DDs, but we have 2 separate DD structures.  
> As 
> for the POJOs, we would have one set of POJOs containing both J2EE and 
> Geronimo deployment information, in a single tree instead of a "Geronimo 
> extends J2EE" tree (because we really have no use for a J2EE tree on its 
> own).

Actually there's less emphasis on the geronimo dd for the web tier as 
compared to the ejb tier.

>  It would make both the schemas and the POJOs quite a bit cleaner, 
> though we would have to do a bit of mapping at load time.
> 
> 	This has two implications:
> 
> 1) We'll have to rewrite the schemas and POJOs
> 
> 2) We can't use a XML binding tool that generates its own POJOs (since we
> will have 2 schemas going into one POJO tree).  On the up side, I've
> recently heard of tools where you have to configure the tool to bind XML
> to existing beans, so this might not be a big problem.
I can see the appeal of a single merged POJO, but on the other hand, I'd 
rather we used an automated tool than having to maintain a lot of custom 
code.

Just one other consideration: to satisfy JSR77, containers need to be 
able to return, as a String, the xml of the j2ee deployment descriptor 
of their application components. Currently, this involves a lot of 
faffing around with DOMS plus converting to POJOs. So, I'd like to see 
some way of easily obtaining this stringified form from a (merged?) POJO.


> 	I'm willing to undertake 1, and I'm not heartbroken by 2 (mainly 
> because we've been having such problems with tools already).  But I guess 
> I should put in a 3:
> 
> 3) The deployment process will go unstable while we work this out
> 
> 	At ApacheCon, we decided to hold off until "after the demo".  The
> demo is over, but now people are talking about a release.  What do you
> think about undertaking this now?
> 
> Aaron

cheers
Jan


Mime
View raw message