geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mohammed Nour" <nour.moham...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Support for different modules types in EAR
Date Mon, 29 May 2006 01:38:27 GMT
On 5/29/06, Guillaume Nodet <guillaume.nodet@worldonline.fr> wrote:
>
> I fully agree to support that.
>
> EAR is by definition an application, and I think that every deployable
> feature in Geronimo should be able to deploy within an EAR.
> Especially for ServiceMix, I think this would be a great addition:
> ServiceMix is an integration bus and it should be able to completely
> integrate with Geronimo, but some limitations are difficult to work
> around, the main ones being:
> * the lack of global JNDI,
> * deployment along with other J2EE resources (which would be solved by
> deploying JBI applications within an EAR)
> * use of unmanaged threads wrt to transactions and J2EE resources (you
> have to be fully integrated into Geronimo so that you can initialize the
> necessary thread local variables containing the contexts for various
> Geronimo layers when these contexts could easily be created when first
> used in a non-initialized thread)
>
> AFAIK, Geronimo main goal so far has been to be fully J2EE compliant,


I want to ask, is it compliant to J2EE to have a proprietary application
deployment descriptor specific to a certain app-server ? and adding new and
specific declarations to it ?

but all these points fall into the ease of use category and could /
> should be addressed.
>
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
>
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> > Any objections to supporting different module types (such as Geronimo
> > service JARs or future Spring or ServiceMix JARs) within an EAR?  For
> > example, this would let you create an EAR with a normal EJB JAR, a
> > normal web app WAR, and a Geronimo service JAR containing GBeans used
> > by the EJBs or web app (or that just run when the app runs).
> >
> > To do this, I figure we'd just let you specify additional modules in
> > the geronimo-application.xml, even if you're not going to provide a
> > plan for them.  So it would be something like this:
> >
> > application.xml
> >
> > <application>
> >  <module><ejb>foo.jar</ejb></module>
> >  <module><web>...</web></module>
> > </application>
> >
> > geronimo-application.xml
> >
> > <application>
> >  <module>
> >    <other>bar.jar</other>
> >  </module>
> > </application>
> >
> > Where a plan like this indicates that there are no overrides for the
> > EJB or Web app, but we're adding another module, bar.jar, with
> > unspecified type.  That should be OK since during deployment we ask
> > all the config builders whether they can handle the specified module,
> > so we'll figure out whether we can handle it, and if so, what type of
> > module it is (based on what deployment descriptors / plans it
> > contains).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >    Aaron
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message