geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Boynes <jboy...@gluecode.com>
Subject Re: online and offline deployment
Date Sun, 07 Nov 2004 22:54:18 GMT
I think there is a misconception here between what is supported and what 
is recommended. There have been a lot of bad ideas in the past (EJB1.0 
DD anyone?) and people have tried to improve on them. I don't think we 
need to make bad ideas from the past the recommended way of doing things 
even if we support them.

More specific comments inline.

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, David Jencks wrote:
> 
>>I don't think "drop, wait & wonder" hot deployment should be supported.  
>>  This only supports deployment of applications with embedded plans or  
>>applications that need no plan. 
> 
> 
> 	I don't understand the objections to this.  "embedded plans" is 
> the way every J2EE application I've ever seen has worked, save the days 
> when WebSphere made you save your plan to DB2 instead of XML files.  Every 
> tool in the space today puts your plans in the archive.
> 

The biggest objection to this is the way in which you have to crack open 
multiple levels of archive in order to add the deployment information. 
Not only is this a PITA but it also compromises the provenance of the 
supplied archive - any original signature is lost.

> 	Granted, the current J2EE leadership seems to think that no
> application archive should contain server-specific information, but that
> is not a standard, that is a paradigm shift.  Don't you think it will take
> a long time before the average J2EE developer stops trying to pack their
> server-specific deployment descriptor (or "deployment plan") into their
> archives?  Refusing to support the by-far-most-common method of J2EE
> packaging and deployment is IMHO only going to turn people off to the
> product, even if you argue that it's "more correct".
> 

No one is refusing to support this - in fact, it is already fully 
supported. We just recommend using an external plan.

> 	This is still a different issue than offline deployment, though, 
> since a directory scanner would only work while the server was online.  As 
> well, I'd be fine if the directory scanner declined to deploy anything 
> without a Geronimo plan, or just produced errors along the lines of 
> "unable to resolve reference to foo, please include a Geronimo deployment 
> plan (geronimo-jetty.xml)"...
> 

Again, I don't think anyone is refusing to support this - David and I 
just don't think it's a good idea for technical reasons such as 
incompatibility with JSR-88, reliance on proprietary embedded plans, 
copy problems, non-deterministic outcomes, ...

If someone implements this (dealing, of course, with all the nasties) 
then all the better; in fact, IIRC there is some old scanning code of 
mine lying around in the repo somewhere.

However, due to the technical issues I would still not advocate scanning 
as being the recommended way of "deploying" an application into Geronimo.

--
Jeremy

Mime
View raw message