Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:50:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Aaron Mulder <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu>
To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Deployment / Partnership / JSR-88
In-Reply-To: <200311231015.55392.markus.karg@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311231143270.8776-100000@www.princetongames.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Markus Karg wrote:
> thanks for the answer. I'll do some tests in the next weeks, maybe I'll bother 
> you with some questions then... ;-)
> 
> There is one question which actually is not essential but I just wanted to 
> ask. The JSR-88 spec tells that the deployment manager can be obtained by an 
> URL, for an example "deployer:" is mentioned. It is not told that "deployer:" 
> is a normative term in that URL. So what benefit do you get from that 
> "deployer:" prefix? On the other hand: I know two actual JSR-88 
> implementations now (Geronimo, Ishmael). Both use the "deployer:" prefix. So 
> who in the expert group had a problem with adding "deployer:" as a normative 
> term?

	It's more or less based on JDBC, where most JDBC driver URLs begin
with "jdbc:".  It prevents any confusion when comparing to other URLs.  
It's a contrived example, but imagine if some database product had the
acronym "http" or "ftp" or something.  By beginning everything with
"deployer:" it's clear what you're talking about.  As for why it's not
required, I don't recall exactly, but a lot of vendors are sensitive about
over-specifying, and it didn't seem terribly urgent to make it required.

> Oh, one more question: Do you know of any other JSR-88 "driver vendors" 
> besides Geronimo and Ishmael? I would like to contact them for more "cross 
> tests". Rebecca Searls couldn't send me a list... :-)

	I don't know of any specific server vendors, but supposedly there
are going to be J2EE 1.4 implementations announced the second the spec is
finalized (any day now), so they must be out there.  I know Netbeans has a
tool implementation (at least in progress, if not final) -- I can ask what
kind of server implementation they've been testing against.  You might try 
following up with the J2EE 1.4 spec team and see if they'll release some 
names.

Aaron