Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4149774E.5000002@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:21:50 +0200
From: Jacek Laskowski <jlaskowski@apache.org>
Organization: Apache Geronimo (http://geronimo.apache.org)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.8a3) Gecko/20040817
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactoring Deployment
References: <4148D6C9.4000406@gluecode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4148D6C9.4000406@gluecode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jeremy Boynes wrote:

> One thing we have talked about in the past is the problem with having 
> deployment classes in each module - for example, having the connector 
> deployer in the connector module. The issue here is that due to 
> classloader dependencies, the deployment code needs to end up in the 
> Server module so that it can interact with the deployers in each module.
> 
> The proposed solution to this was to split each deployable module into 
> two - a runtime module that contained everything needed to execute the 
> components (e.g. the servlet or ejb containers) and another which 
> contained the deployment code. This way we could have separate runtime 
> and deployment configurations.
> 
> With Tomcat coming up to speed we will be adding another deployer so I 
> think this would be a good time to do that refactoring - any thoughts?

+1 (I'm not at all aware of the issues you mentioned, but as I don't 
want to learn things that may change before I have finished, please do 
so now).

> Jeremy

Jacek