geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: GBeans: Saving Changes
Date Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:45:53 GMT
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, David Jencks wrote:
> I think this is a prime example of where you should use app-centric 
> deployment, i.e. put the security gbeans in the application.

	What if your developers are not trusted with the production 
database or LDAP accounts?  Are you arguing that your application 
deployment information should need to be changed between final test and 
production?  I think it's a pretty important feature to be able to have an 
unaltered EAR going from test to prod.

> I'd think you'd want to have a compatibility-layer configuration 
> including all the app specific stuff that needs to be different for 
> each server.  Each environment would get its own compatibility layer, 
> exposing the same stuff to the application.

	Okay, now you're arguing that app-centric deployment does not 
always work, which I would obviously agree with.

	So what if you want to change the compatibility layer?  Wouldn't 
it be nice if you could do that in the web console instead of be writing 
deployment plans and redeploying them?  This is what ease of use is all 
about to me.  We can totally support changing things on the fly in the web 
console.  Why not give people that option?

> Other servers AFAIK tend to have monolithic server configurations and
> limited application configuration, and a lot of server configuration may
> have to be done at runtime.  What if we take a step back from what we
> are used to doing and think if there is a better way.

	Again, I support this 100% as an option.  I just don't believe it 
is the *only* option.  I think each approach has its advantages, and 
different situations would benefit from each.  I believe we should support 
both.

Aaron

> One point of view is that if you have to change something on your 
> running server, your deployment tools weren't good enough: they should 
> be good enough so when you deploy, everything is there, and it works.  
> This is sort of like type safety in compiled languages: by the time you 
> get to running, the system has already eliminated many classes of 
> errors.

	

Mime
View raw message