geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <dsundst...@gluecode.com>
Subject Re: deployment (oh, how I hate to go here...)
Date Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:04:45 GMT
On Feb 7, 2005, at 7:34 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> It seems I can "deploy" to a running server and "distribute" to a 
> non-running server. I understand the technical difference, but I don't 
> grok why we need this difference, and more importantly, why I can't 
> "undistribute" in the event of a mistake...

This has bugged me for a while

> I was perusing JSR88, and it seems to indicate that distribute, start, 
> stop, undeploy and redeploy are the "verbs", all applying to a running 
> server.  There seems to be no concept of offline for JSR88 that's 
> useful.

Just because spec choose to ignore offline deployment doesn't mean that 
the "verbs" applied to a stopped server don't have meaning to the 
average joe.

> 1) A JSR-88 compliant tool that is strict in it's support of the spec, 
> asymmetry and all.
>
> 2) A Geronimo-specific tool that lets me have the nifty things you 
> guys designed into this, like a redistributable configuration archive. 
>  I'll go re-read the threads...

I an definitely against having more then one deploy tool.  It is like 
having a mail reader to read internet mail and a separate mail tool to 
read corporate mail.  Mail is mail and deployment is deployment.


On Feb 7, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> 	As we left ApacheCon, there was a strategy established for the
> best way to handle deployment, and specifically offline deployment -- I
> think David J understood it best.  I assume it was a procedure for 
> loading
> "just enough" of the server to get the correct config store, etc., but 
> I'd
> have to look at the mail trail myself.

I remember everyone liking the strategy, but I can't remember it myself 
anymore :)  Maybe David, can jog our memories.

On Feb 7, 2005, at 8:28 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> IOW, I should be able to, in a parallel universe where no Geronimo 
> server exists, run the deployer and produce a instance-independent 
> artifact (I think they have been called 'configuration archives') that 
> I can then transport through a rift in the time-space continuum and 
> give to you to deploy on your machine.
>
> Now, if you don't buy the parallel universe schtick, imagine a regular 
> production environment where developers have absolutely zero access to 
> the production machine, and are probably separated by 1-2 layers of QA 
> and testing, either something like
>
>   dev ->   QA  ->  prod
>
> or
>
>   dev -> QA -> stage/client eval -> prod
>
> In my past, deployment to QA systems came from tagged CVS.  After 
> passing QA, it was deployed to staging system from a tag in CVS... 
> same w/ prod.   Ops didn't get to modify things, like where to find 
> the database and ish.

The parallel universe scenario doesn't work anyway.  The generated CAR 
files are basically keyed to the server that generated them.  Maybe 
with a ton of work one day we will be able to do that, but for the 
foreseeable future it is not possible.

-dain


Mime
View raw message