geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Question about deployer classloaders/plan hierarchy.
Date Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:38:07 GMT
I'd like to get the intended structure for the deployer/runtime 
classloader/plan hierarchies out in the open and well documented and 
agreed on.

My understanding is that the desired architecture is to have two 
independent classloader hierarchies, one for deployment and one for 
runtime.  The deployer set should not need to include any runtime 
classes: when you construct a configuration for some module, its 
classloader will be a child of some other runtime configuration, and 
any classes needed for deployment will be loaded from that other 
configuration's classloader.

This desired structure is most emphatically not present today:  the 
j2ee-deployer-plan includes all the runtime classes and the 
j2ee-server-plan includes all the deployer classes, plus as an added 
"bonus", instances of the deployer gbeans.

I believe that we have split out deployment specific code completely 
enough so that we can divide the server-side hierarchy into two plans:

j2ee-server-plan would contain only runtime classes and gbeans
j2ee-server-deployer-plan, a child of j2ee-server-plan, would contain 
the xxx-builder classes and deployer gbeans.

The j2ee-server-plan level would be free from, in particular, xmlbeans 
code: AFAIK the only xml manipulation is in jetty, and that might be 
made obsolete by GERONIMO-473. (hmmm. don't know about axis)

However, I think the original goal was to have the builder modules not 
actually directly use classes from the runtime modules, but allow such 
classes to be loaded from the configuration's classloader only.  At the 
moment we cannot achieve this goal because there are several classes 
that are used both in deployment and runtime.  In particular, there is 
a POJO model in security and a few classes in connector.  I believe 
that if we decided to approach the goal of completely independent 
classloader hierarchies we would need another set of modules for shared 
classes, or we would have to eliminate these shared classes.

Please comment.

thanks
david jencks


Mime
View raw message