geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Boynes <jboy...@gluecode.com>
Subject Re: External Deployment Plans, Web Services, and EARs
Date Mon, 08 Nov 2004 02:08:14 GMT
A good concern but I don't think we'll need to do this.

Each module in the EAR can be deployed standalone where we only get the 
single plan allowed by JSR-88; therefore we need to be able to nest 
plans for other things such as webservices or portlets inside that 
single plan.

The ANY element in the EAR contains the same single plan as would be 
used for that module standalone.

I don't think we've figured out how the stuff from DConfigBeans would 
get mapped down to that. When we do, it needs to come down to a single 
XML document that can be written as a deployment plan and hence which 
can be nested in a single ANY element.

--
Jeremy

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> 	So it looks like our EAR deployment plan can hold nested
> deployment plans for all the modules within it, using the "any" area of
> the module element in the geronimo-application.xml.
> 	I'm concerned that we may eventually want more than one nested
> deployment plan per module.  For example, a module that uses web services
> would have a separate web services DD.  Will we combine both the web
> services and standard settings into one Geronimo plan, or would we have,
> for example, a "Geronimo EJB" and "Geronimo Web Services" plan for the
> same EJB JAR?
> 	In JSR-88, the API allows you to access each J2EE deployment 
> descriptor separately, and provide server-specific DConfigBeans for it.
> Each DConfigBean is tied to a specific DDBean (J2EE DD element), so it 
> wouldn't really be possible for us to properly reflect the 
> Geronimo-specific DD elements for both web services and standard J2EE 
> modules without having separate DConfigBean trees for each.
> 	Still, we could take the two sets of DConfigBeans and merge them
> somehow and write out a single deployment plan...  So we're not
> necessarily tied to having separate files.
> 
> 	Anyway, if we do think we'll want multiple deployment plans for
> each module, we should probably change the EAR plan structure to take a
> group of file name/any pairs instead of just a single any.
> 
> Aaron


Mime
View raw message